ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

As Newton recognized knowing more about the world by standing on the shoulders of giants, I too want to recognize those giants in my life who have helped make this thesis possible. In particular, I want to thank Dr. Evan Ragland of the University of Notre Dame, who helped me begin this thesis, and who has been with me every step of the way in writing it. He has always been a wonderful professor and friend, and I am always appreciative of him and his lovely family. As well, all of my committee members have been a boon to me through their encouragements and criticisms. All of them have helped to make my thesis better. Further recognition goes out to the entire faculty in the Department of History. They have always looked out for me and helped me along, and I am grateful for all they have provided throughout the years.

Support is also found outside academia while writing a thesis. In particular, I want to thank my girlfriend Ashley for all of her love and support, both with respect to the thesis and otherwise. I am grateful for her listening to my ideas, proofreading draft pages, and encouraging me when my spirits were down while writing. Furthermore, I want to thank all of my family and friends for the encouragement and support they have given me while writing this thesis. I am truly grateful for all of them, and for the wonderful community they all provide. For everyone related to me, blood or not, thanks for everything. I love you all.

I would also like to acknowledge my parents. For my Mom: Thanks for taking care of me as we have taken care of each other through some very difficult times in the past few years. For the memory of my Dad: Wherever you are, thanks for instilling in me a love of learning and knowledge. I love you both.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Manuscript Chronology vii

Chapter Page

I. INTRODUCING NEWTON AND THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF HIS CONNECTIONS AND DIVISIONS 1

II. NEWTON’S RELIGIOUS WRITINGS 26

III. “BEYOND THE REACH OF HUMAN ART AND INDUSTRY”: NEWTON’S WORK IN CHYMISTRY 47

IV. GOD’S ACTIVITY IN NATURE 74

V. CONCLUSION 92

WORKS CITED 98

REFERENCES 104

vi

MANUSCRIPT CHRONOLOGY

“De Gravitatione et Aequipondio Fluidorum ” (1664-1668, pre-1684, late 1684 or early 1685; Janiak, n. 11)

Keynes MS. 29 (c. 1668/9; Figala, 383 n. 20)

Portsmouth Collection Add. MS. 3975, “Idea of a table booke” (pre-1669-1693; Chymistry of Isaac Newton )

Dibner MS. 1031 B, “Of Natures obvious laws & processes in vegetation” (early 1670s; Chymistry of Isaac Newton )

Yahuda MS. 1.1, “Untitled Treatise on Revelation” (c. 1670s-1680s; Newton Project )

Yahuda MS. 17.3, “Notes on ancient religions” (1680s and early 1690s; Newton Project )

Keynes MS. 28, “Hermes” and “Commentarium” (late 1680s to early 1690s; Dobbs, Janus Faces of Genius , 272)

Yahuda MS. 41, “Draft chapters of a treatise on the origin of religion and its corruption” (c. early 1690s; Newton Project )

Letter from Newton to Richard Bentley (December 10, 1692)

Unused preface to Opticks 2 nd ed., 1704 (1703; Shapiro, 249)

Keynes MS. 6, “Seven Statements on Religion” (post-1710; Newton Project )

Keynes MS. 8, “Twelve articles on religion” (post-1710; Newton Project )

Opticks: Or, A Treatise on the Reflections, Refractions, Inflexions and Colours of Light. The Second Edition, with Additions (1718)

The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (3 rd edition 1726)

Yahuda MS. 14, “Miscellaneous notes and extracts on the Temple, the Fathers, prophecy, Church history, doctrinal issues, etc.” (not dated)

vii

Unknown Author and Newton, Keynes MS. 33, “Manna” (unknown date)

Letters from Humphrey Newton to John Conduitt, Keynes MS. 135 (January 17, and February 17, 1727/8)

viii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTING NEWTON AND THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF HIS CONNECTIONS AND DIVISIONS

Here is buried Isaac Newton, Knight, who by a strength of mind almost divine, and mathematical principles peculiarly his own, explored the course and figures of the planets, the paths of comets, the tides of the sea, the dissimilarities in rays of light, and, what no other scholar has previously imagined, the properties of the colours thus produced. Diligent, sagacious and faithful, in his expositions of nature, antiquity and the holy Scriptures, he vindicated by his philosophy the majesty of God mighty and good, and expressed the simplicity of the Gospel in his manners. Mortals rejoice that there has existed such and so great an ornament of the human race! He was born on 25th December 1642, and died on 20th March 1726. – English translation of epigraph on the monument of Isaac Newton, Westminster Abbey

The epigraph on the monument of Isaac Newton in Westminster Abbey, where the sculpted Newton looks like a relaxed and content god, gives the man high praise, and for good reason. He was a man of high intellect – a true genius – and, as the epitaph shows, he was interested in many different areas of study. 1

Born on Christmas Day in 1642, according to the Julian Calendar being used in

England at the time, the young Newton lived his days against the backdrop of the English

Civil War and Charles II regaining power in 1660. He was brought up in a Puritan family, and while some in his family expected Newton to become a farmer like his father, other paths opened for him. Very intellectually inclined, Newton became a student at

1 The “apotheosis” of Newton can be explored more in Mordechai Feingold, The Newtonian Moment: Isaac Newton and the Making of Modern Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), and Peter Gay, The Enlightenment: An Interpretation. Volume II: The Science of Freedom (New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1977), 128-33.

1 Trinity College at Cambridge University in 1661, where he read, certainly among other works, texts by Aristotle, Kepler, and Descartes. He was aware, then, of ancient and contemporary pursuits in understanding the natural world. 2

Newton was undoubtedly a genius when it came to studying the phenomena of nature. Especially important to Newton’s later works was his study of mathematics. He became a master on the subject, in particular from 1665-1666. Cambridge was closed as a result of a plague outbreak, and while spending his time at his family home in

Woolsthrope, he “developed the basic results of the differential and integral calculus.” 3 It was also in the mid-1660s that he performed his significant experiments on the refraction of light, which would inform his later optical works, and was also pondering motion, particularly “uniform circular motion.” 4

After returning to Cambridge, Newton became a Fellow of Trinity College in

1667, where, unlike other Fellows, he did not take holy orders or allegiance to the Church of England. It was before taking this fellowship that Newton, studying heavily in theology, came to believe the Trinity was a corrupt doctrine, a denial that no doubt would have landed him in hot water had he professed it publicly. He did not have to, though, as he gained a position paid for with private as opposed to state funds: the Lucasian

Professorship of Mathematics. Along with theology, optics, and mathematics, Newton was also studying, and performing experiments in, “chymistry,” a term used to denote the

2 I. Bernard Cohen and George E. Smith, “Introduction,” in The Cambridge Companion to Newton , eds. I Bernard Cohen and George E. Smith (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 9-10; Rob Iliffe, Newton: A Very Short Introduction (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 8. 3 Cohen and Smith, 10. 4 Cohen and Smith, 10.

2 subjects of “alchemy” and “chemistry,” which were basically the same subject, with interchangeable terms. 5

Newton was soon to become a very important figure in seventeenth-century intellectual life. Letters of his work in optics and color were published from 1672 to

1676 in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society , and these, along with his mathematical work, gained him much notoriety. Other works from this time included his then-unpublished lectures on optics, dating from 1670-1672, and ones on algebra from

1673-1683. These lectures are quite impressive and complex; it must have been difficult for Newton’s students to comprehend everything. He also continued his private studies in chymistry, religion, and physics. It was in 1687 that perhaps his biggest contribution to the study of the natural world appeared, the Mathematical Principles of Natural

Philosophy , or known simply as the Principia , a book extremely influential in the areas of celestial physics, especially as it laid out the theory of Universal Gravitation. 6

Praise in Britain and scorn on the Continent resulted from the Royal Society’s publishing of Newton’s masterwork. Particularly, Gottfried Leibniz did not agree with

Newton’s idea, and even published his own work on motion in 1689. The bitterness in their relationship occurred when, in 1709, a follower of Newton, John Keill, stated that

Leibniz had stolen Newton’s calculus. While Newton came up with it first, Leibniz did not steal it, but developed his independently and published his ideas before Newton. 7 In

1689 and 1701, Newton was elected to Parliament, representing Cambridge University.

5 Cohen and Smith, 10-1; William R. Newman and Lawrence M. Principe, “Alchemy vs. Chemistry: The Etymological Origins of a Historiographic Mistake,” Early Science and Medicine 3, no. 1 (1998): 33, 35, 38-41. 6 Cohen and Smith, 11-2; Illife, Newton , ix. 7 Cohen and Smith, 12-4. For more of the dispute on the calculus, please see Domenico Bertoloni Meli, Equivalence and Priority: Newton versus Leibniz, Including Leibniz’s Unpublished Manuscripts on the Principia (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993).

3 In the early 1690s, while he was attempting to write a second edition of the Principia ,

Newton experienced some kind of mental breakdown. 8 In 1696, he left for London as

Warden of the Mint, and became its Master in 1699. Four years later he became the president of the Royal Society, and two years after that he was knighted. In the midst of these changes, in 1704 he published his other great work, the Opticks . In 1713, the second edition of the Principia was published, including the “General Scholium” where he not only wrote his famous phrase “ Hypotheses non fingo ” – “I do not feign hypotheses” – but also that within the cosmos was God, who not only resided everywhere, but also controlled everything in nature. 9

In his waning years, Newton’s mind and pen were still active, though his attention was more attuned to theology, prophecy, and chronology. A second edition of the

Opticks came out in 1717/18, and the third edition of the Principia arrived in 1726. He was a remarkable genius and recognized as such in Britain, if not as much on the

Continent. Newton breathed for the last time on March 20, 1727. 10

A. A Legacy of Newton(s): Connecting “Rational” Science to “Irrational” Religion and Chymistry

The legacy of Isaac Newton has held him up as a genius, perhaps an ultimate man of reason, and with good reason. Mention him to anyone, and they will probably have some familiarity with him as the man who discovered the laws of gravity, or as an icon of the “Scientific Revolution.” One of contemporary science’s most important public faces,

8 Cohen and Smith, 12-3; Richard S. Westfall, Never at Rest: A Biography of Isaac Newton (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 277-80. 9 Cohen and Smith, 13-4. Quotations from 13; Isaac Newton, The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy , trans. I Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), 940-3. 10 Cohen and Smith, 14. As noted on the epigraph, Newton died in 1726. Cohen and Smith, and also Iliffe, note his death in 1727. This discrepancy is a result of the “Old Style” Julian Calendar and “New Style” Gregorian Calendar, the latter of which came in use in England, it appears, in 1700. More on this can be found in Westfall, Never at Rest , xvi.

4 Neil deGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist, has praised Newton for his intellect, particularly for his laws of motion and universal gravitation. 11 Albert Einstein, on the 200 th anniversary of Newton’s death, wrote,

He was not only an inventor of genius in respect of particular guiding methods; he also showed a unique mastery of the empirical material known in his time, and he was marvelously inventive in special mathematical and physical demonstrations. For all these reasons he deserves our deep veneration. 12

He was also a preeminent man of reason in Victorian England, and especially so in eighteenth-century England and Europe. The rationally-focused ethos of the

Enlightenment held up Newton as one of the heroes in the pantheon of rationality. This was not an era that was particularly fond of other studies in Newton’s life that did not fit its ideals, namely his works in theology, biblical chronology, and chymistry. 13

Since Newton was a man who possessed such genius and intellect, and who used his intellectual prowess in different areas of study, it is no surprise scholars have tried to understand Newton’s mind and different areas of work, from his well-known published scientific texts to those areas deemed a part of the “Unknown Newton,” namely, his studies in chymistry and religion. 14 More specifically, many have tried to make sense of possible connections to be found among Newton’s writings.

While Newton’s heretical ideas were in public view by 1728 with William

Whiston releasing A Collection of Authentick Records , and while these beliefs, along with

11 Neil deGrasse Tyson, “The Perimeter of Ignorance,” Natural History , http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/universe/211420/the-perimeter-of-ignorance (accessed March 10, 2016). 12 Albert Einstein, “Einstein on Newton,” NOVA , http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/einstein-on- newton.html (accessed March 10, 2016). 13 Iliffe, Newton , ix-x; Gay, 128-33; Peter Dear, Revolutionizing the Sciences: European Knowledge and its Ambitions, 1500-1700 , 2 nd ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009), 160-3. 14 An excellent place to look for this is the recent work by Newton scholars with “The Unknown Newton,” The New Atlantis , http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-unknown-newton-a-symposium (accessed March 10, 2016).

5 Newton’s work in chymistry, were written about by David Brewster in his two nineteenth-century biographies of Newton (1831 and 1855), more light shined on these lesser-known pursuits in recent memory. 15 John Maynard Keynes purchased several of

Newton’s theological and chymical manuscripts in 1936, and wrote in 1942, “Newton was not the first of the age of reason. He was the last of the magicians.” 16

Roughly two decades later, J.E. McGuire and P.M. Rattansi attempted to reconcile Newton’s work in science and religion by stating Newton wanted to bring together God and science into a “ science universelle ,” where the goal was not only to learn about nature, but that God was present and active in it. 17 This view is supported significantly by their belief that Newton was working in the traditions of the prisca sapientia and the prisca theologia , meaning he was looking towards ancient knowledge and conceptions of God to inform his work. 18 Richard Westfall, who has written what is still the dominant biography of Newton, claimed there were connections to be found between his religion and science, but not his theology. With the latter, Westfall meant a specific influence flowing from Newton’s supposed Arian Christology to his science.

For this, he looks to God in the “General Scholium” of the Principia , and claims that he does not know if Newton’s view of God came from his supposed Arian views or not, and that “even if we grant the influence we remain still on a plane of high generality from

15 Iliffe, Newton , 3-5. 16 Iliffe, Newton , 5-6; John Maynard Keynes, “Newton, the Man,” 1, Department of Physics, Columbia University , http://phys.columbia.edu/~millis/3003Spring2016/Supplementary/John%20Maynard%20Keynes_%20%22 Newton,%20the%20Man%22.pdf (accessed March 21, 2016). Quotation from Keynes, 1. 17 J.E. McGuire and P.M. Rattansi, “Newton and the ‘Pipes of Pan,’” Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London 21, no. 2 (1966), 126. 18 McGuire and Rattansi, 121-3.

6 which it is difficult if not impossible to demonstrate an influence on some concrete element of his science.” 19

In the early 1990s, two scholars in particular took on the relationship between

Newton’s theology and science in different ways, though both argued for strong unity between the two. James Force argued for a very strong connection between Newton’s theology and natural philosophy. In particular, Force makes an epistemological argument, claiming Newton’s understanding of nature is all dependent on the power of

God, the “Lord God of Dominion.” 20 He writes,

…the total supremacy of God’s power and will over every aspect of creation, colors every aspect of [Newton’s] views about how matter (and the laws regulating the ordinary operation of matter) is created, preserved, reformed, and, occasionally, interdicted by a voluntary and direct act of God’s sovereign will and power. 21

In short, “Newton’s thought is a seamless unity of theology, metaphysics, and natural science.” 22

This unity is found, for example, in Force’s belief that Newton thought repeated observations were needed in order to fully understand the laws of nature, because God had the power to change the laws of nature if He willed to do so. Force supports this by looking to a preface from the second edition of the Principia (1713), where Roger Cotes wrote the “variety of forms and motions” in nature “could arise from nothing but the perfectly free will of God directing and presiding over it,” and that this is the source of the laws of nature, “in which there appear many traces indeed of the most wise

19 Westfall, “Newton’s Theological Manuscripts,” in Contemporary Newtonian Research , ed. Zev Bechler (Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1982), 139-40, as quoted in James Force, “Newton’s God of Dominion: The Unity of Newton’s Theological, Scientific, and Political Thought,” in Essays on the Context, Nature, and Influence of Isaac Newton’s Theology , eds. J.E. Force and R.H. Popkin (Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1990), 76-7. Quotation from 76. 20 Force, 84. 21 Force, 84. 22 Force, 84.

7 contrivance, but not the least shadow of necessity.” 23 By including this, it certainly appears that Newton would approve of such language showing God’s action in the universe, but it does not necessarily lend support to the idea that continual observations are needed to understand nature if God decides to change nature’s laws. In another instance, he suggests Newton’s fourth “Rule of reasoning” from the Principia speaks to this idea of continual observation. Indeed, it does, but claiming that to do so because of

God’s activity in nature is a stretch. For, when Newton writes that we are to not make any further judgments on activity in nature until more phenomenon presents itself, this hardly refers to God, but rather to the idea that more knowledge may be gained about the natural world as it is explored more and put to experimentation. 24

He also connects prophecy to God’s dominion over nature, and yet the example he uses does not speak to this, but instead to prophecies concerning Christ’s initial time on earth and the Second Coming. Force may see some connection here where Newton writes, “For the event of things predicted many ages before, will then be a convincing argument that the world is governed by providence,” but given the context of this writing, it appears that Force is misguided to find a connection between prophecy and nature here. 25 Another instance of connecting prophecy and nature comes when he cites

Revelation, where there will be the creation of a new heaven and earth, though this appears to be Force speculating a connection between Scripture and Newton’s view of

God’s dominion, whereby He is capable of changing nature. 26 He also sees a connection between God as described in the “General Scholium” and an earlier manuscript where

23 Force, 87-90. Quotations from 89. 24 Force, 89. 25 Force, 87. 26 Force, 84, 85.

8 Newton, writing on a passage from II Kings, states, “the wisest of beings require[s] of us to be celebrated not so much for his essences as for his actions, the creating, preserving, and governing of all things according to his good will and pleasure.” 27 Newton may very well have pulled on this language and idea of God’s actions for the “General Scholium,” but Force appears to imply too much by highlighting “the creating, preserving, and governing of all things.” The manuscript in question, Yahuda MS. 21, compares the characteristics of a king to God, both of whom are to be praised for their actions, and not their characteristics, or “essences,” as in the case of God. 28 Newton may have thought in the back of his mind there was a connection in this case, but the textual evidence does not necessarily demand it. Indeed, as Force is most concerned with Newton’s thought – his mind – it makes sense that he wants to find connections to show a “seamless unity” between his theology, metaphysics, and natural philosophy, but Force appears too assume too much by looking at Newton’s works and thinking that he constantly had an eye towards the Lord God of Dominion.

Betty Dobbs argued for a similar unity in Newton’s works, and she shows this in two ways. First, she claims Newton’s chymistry/alchemy was connected to other works, including his physics in the Principia , particularly in terms of his alchemy influencing his concept of attractive forces. I.B. Cohen disagreed with this connection to Newton’s physics, made by both Dobbs and Richard Westfall. Instead, Newton’s own developments in mathematics, not alchemical active principles, were responsible for his

27 Force, 85. 28 Force, 85, 99 n. 28; Newton, “Exposition of 2 Kings 17:15-16,” c. 1675-1685, Yahuda MS. 28, The Newton Project , http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00064 (accessed March 21, 2016).

9 understanding of attraction in the grand work, thought Cohen. 29 On another larger level,

Dobbs sets out to show that all of Newton’s work was connected in a unity of the search for Truth, which was unified by God, an idea she states Newton and others at his time assumed. She sees Newton as finding such through his varied studies in many different areas of thought, including “Neoplatonism, Cartesian mechanical philosophy, Stoicism; chemistry, alchemy, atomism; biblical, patristic, and pagan religions.” 30 This, then, serves as something of an epistemological claim, for according to Dobbs, Newton is working under the idea that God’s Truth underpins several areas of knowledge. 31 So, on one level, we see specific textual connections between Newton’s chymistry and different areas of study, including physics and cosmogony, and the other, far more important to

Dobbs, is in the mind, that in all of his different areas of work what mattered was finding the Truth God had set in many different areas of study. 32 Concerning Newton’s approach to “religion” and “science,” she writes, “Not only was Newton’s goal a unified system of

God and nature, it was also his conviction that God acted in the world.” 33 For Dobbs,

Newton’s God continued to interact with the world, but by the means of the “alchemical spirit,” called elsewhere a “vegetable spirit.” 34 She echoes McGuire and Rattansi’s goal of bringing God and nature together, though her evidence is distinctly chymical.

29 Betty Jo Teeter Dobbs, The Janus Faces of Genius: The Role of Alchemy in Newton’s Thought (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 1-18. For more on Cohen’s argument, see Cohen, “The Principia , universal gravitation, and the ‘Newtonian style,’ in relation to the Newtonian revolution in science: notes on the occasion of the 250 th anniversary of Newton’s death,” in Contemporary Newtonian Research , ed. Zev Bechler (Studies in the History of Modern Science, 9; Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1982), 21- 108. 30 Dobbs, 1-18. Quotation from 12. 31 Dobbs, 11-2. 32 Dobbs, 1-18. 33 Dobbs, 12. 34 Dobbs, 13, 83. Quotations from both 13 and 83.

10 One important piece of evidence Dobbs uses, especially concerning the connection between God and nature, is her strong suggestion that the Arian understanding of Christ equated Him with the vegetable spirit. 35 One document she looks to, Yahuda MS. 15.7, has Newton writing that Christ is not only subject to God, but that

Christ “execut[es] His will,” and therefore, Christ acts in the world for God. 36 She then moves to Yahuda MS. 15.5, where she looks to a key phrase:

[Christ] is said to have been in the beginning with God and that all things were made by him to signify that as he is now gone to prepare a place for the blessed so in the beginning he prepared and formed the place in which we live, and thenceforward governed it. 37

So, as Dobbs sees it, Christ may very well control, or identify with, the vegetable spirit that Newton saw as carrying out God’s providence in nature. She goes further and even appears to suggest that Christ was partly responsible for the creation of nature as laid out in the “General Scholium.” 38 This is problematic, because the “General Scholium” does not appear at all to reference Christ, but at all times God as the “Lord God Pantokrator ,” or “Universal Ruler.” 39 Furthermore, she appears too assuming by connecting Christ with the alchemical or vegetable spirit, never definitively stating such, instead writing

Christ “would seem to” control, “or perhaps identify” with, the vegetable spirit. 40

Another key piece of evidence for Dobbs is Dibner MS. 1031 B., “Of natures obvious laws & processes.” 41 This document helped spur her to see connections between

35 Dobbs, 81-3. 36 Dobbs, 82, including n. 74. Quotation from 82. 37 Dobbs, 82, including n. 75. 38 Dobbs, 83. 39 Newton, Principia , 940-3. Quotations 940, including n. d. 40 Dobbs, 83. 41 Newton, “Of Natures obvious laws & processes in vegetation,” c. 1670s, Dibner MS. 1031 B., The Chymistry of Isaac Newton , http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/newton/mss/norm/ALCH00081/query/field1=text&text1=dibner%201031 (accessed February 7, 2016).

11 chymistry and gravity, particularly between the vegetable spirit and “gravitational aether,” which she notes were connected and separated at different times, and in different ways, for Newton. Even through this changing connection, Dobbs sees it as evidence for unity in Newton’s thought. 42 A further connection she finds is with Newton’s belief in the Arian Christ, which she sees through a changing definition of “protoplast” from this document to Newton’s “Hypothesis” of 1675, the latter of which shows, for Dobbs, that

Newton thought Christ performed God’s will in the world. This in turn helped her to examine Newton’s theological work more broadly. 43

Dobbs’s call for a unity is problematic, particularly because of her assumption that Newton was searching for God’s Truth. She certainly sees this in several of his writings, by which she thinks all of Newton’s thought was unified. Indeed, she criticizes the idea that his different areas of study should be studied locally, as if Newton approached study in mathematics, chymistry, prophecy, and mechanical philosophy with a “single-mindedness.” 44 No doubt connections existed on smaller levels. While Newton may have been involved in some sort of project to find out God’s Truth, it is problematic to call for unity in his thought, because this suggests that each of his different areas of study had ultimately the same goal. 45 She even admits Newton separated his works on a substantial level: “Newton pursued each area of study as if it were the only one of importance to him and almost always adhered to the terminology and the concepts embedded in that particular field.” 46 If Newton divided up his works as such, it lends more credence to the idea that he wanted to keep his works largely separate, showing that

42 Dobbs, 251-3. Quotations from 252 and 253. 43 Dobbs, 253, 102. 44 Dobbs, 9. 45 Dobbs, 6-13. 46 Dobbs, 251.

12 caution ought to be shown when calling for such strong unity in Newton’s thought and ambitions, for such unity may not necessarily be what Newton was trying to accomplish.

Stephen Snobelen, the current Newton scholar to argue for connections between

Newton’s theology and natural philosophy, has pointed out what he sees are “weak” and

“strong” connections between the two areas:

In discussing the ways in which Newton’s distinctive theology related to his natural philosophy, I want to contend not merely for the weak argument of similarity of style and coincidence of method but also for the strong argument that interpenetration existed at a fundamental level between the cognitive content of the theological and natural philosophical features of Newton’s grand study [the Principia ]. 47

For the “weak” position, Snobelen points to methodology in Newton’s work in hermeneutics (interpretation of Scripture) and properly-conducted natural philosophy. In one instance, he points to the parallels he sees between the “Rules of reasoning in philosophy” in the Principia and his method for interpreting Scripture, whereby he pulls on points by Force and Maurizio Mamiani. The natural philosophical rule includes looking to specific natural phenomenon and making claims upon them, and the one for prophecy is “roughly analogous” to interpreting Scripture, where “one works outward from passages that are easily understood to induce the meaning of the more ambiguous texts.” 48 To me, these barely match up. The “Rules of reasoning” gets natural evidence in order to make a claim about nature, and the hermeneutical method is one where easier- understood texts are a way to better decipher more complex ones. While both might be inductive, they are barely similar. A better example that Snobelen provides is that in understanding both nature and Scripture, it was important for Newton that truth be

47 Stephen D. Snobelen, “‘God of Gods, and Lord of Lords’: The Theology of Isaac Newton’s General Scholium to the Principia,” Osiris 16 (2001): 197. 48 Snobelen, “‘God of Gods,’” 198, and n. 117.

13 simple, not complex. In another example, Snobelen sees Newton’s strict interpretation of

Scripture as very similar to “strict empiricism.” 49 These latter two are valid points, because he would surely want to accurately understand aspects of both to arrive at truth in both. While these linkages are indeed “weak,” Snobelen nonetheless claims that “For

Newton, there was no epistemic wall dividing the study of God from that of His creation.” 50

As for the “strong” connection, Snobelen believes Newton placed his anti-

Trinitarian views directly in the “General Scholium,” whereby only those with eyes to see, the “adept,” would know that Newton was writing such an idea down, whereas those not in the know would not properly see this, and instead only God and His active role in the cosmos. 51 One of these strong points is that God is always in control of nature, hence

God’s “dominion.” 52 He also points to a strong connection when he claims that God’s

“oneness” allowed for unity in the created order, as well as unity in understanding

Scripture and nature; each were “consistent” with each other, and “both could be approached with the same methods and expectations.” 53 Furthermore, Snobelen appears to lend support to this idea by claiming Newton was engaged in a reformation of both theology and natural philosophy. 54

Such claims for connections, whether through content or some sort of unity in

Newton’s mind, has led to criticisms from Rob Iliffe, who has called for a more skeptical approach to connections, and who instead focuses on a more localized and disciplinary

49 Snobelen, “‘God of Gods,’” 198-9. Quotation from 199. 50 Snobelen, “‘God of Gods,’” 200. 51 Snobelen, “‘God of Gods,’” 204-8. 52 Snobelen, “‘God of Gods,’” 202. 53 Snobelen, “‘God of Gods,’” 202-3. Quotations from 202. 54 Snobelen, “‘God of Gods,’” 203; also, see the entirety of Snobelen, “‘The true frame of Nature’: Isaac Newton, Heresy, and the Reformation of Natural Philosophy,” in Heterodoxy in Early Modern Science and Religion , eds. John Brooke and Ian Maclean (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 223-62.

14 approach to Newton’s work in natural philosophy. He has also called connections between his natural philosophy and theology “putative.” 55 Especially important for Iliffe are disciplinary distinctions between Newton’s various disciplines. He states that in

Newton’s different areas of study, from natural philosophy to chymistry, to “geometric optics” and “rational mechanics,” his investigations were “largely incompatible.”56 An important point to support this is Iliffe pointing out that even Newton divided his work up into different compartments, and that “he recognized that different subjects required discipline-specific discursive forms.” 57 In another instance, Iliffe notes that in the

Principia , Newton divides his focus between the more math-heavy Books I and III, and the more natural philosophical-leaning Book III, which used the mathematics of the first two books to describe “the system of the world.” 58

Connections are not lost on him. For one, he recognizes connections between

Newton’s chymical work and his “Queries” to the Opticks .59 In an attempt to explain some of the tensions and seeming incompatibilities to be found in Newton’s work, Iliffe explains that it is likely “junk residue of the audiences, projects, genres, disciplinary formations and linguistic styles in and for whom they were first written.” 60 Other connections include a noticeable level of independent thought, especially when critiquing authorities – both before his time and during – in natural philosophy and religion. In another example, he sees supposed connections between the way Newton approaches

55 Iliffe, “Abstract Considerations: Disciplines and the Incoherence of Newton’s Natural Philosophy,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 35 (2004): 429-30. Quotation from 430. 56 Iliffe, “Abstract Considerations,” 430. 57 Iliffe, “Abstract Considerations,” 430-1. Quotation from 431. 58 Iliffe, “Abstract Considerations,” 447. 59 Iliffe, “Abstract Considerations,” 449. 60 Iliffe, “Abstract Considerations,” 450.

15 “theory and evidence” in the Principia and his writings in prophecy. 61 Another is

Newton’s idea of himself as a reformer in his various areas of work, though this was a position others thought themselves as having. Newton certainly brought his own interpretation to these issues, though, such as seeing “Newtonianism” in different classical texts. 62 These connections focus more on a level of ways of thinking – independent thought, approaching natural philosophical and prophecy, reforming – than

Force’s strong claim of a “seamless unity,” which appears to focus more on specific areas of thought – theology, natural philosophy, metaphysics – and their tight connections with

Newton’s view of God. Having similar ways of thinking that can reach from one discipline to another is different than strong integrations between disciplines in and of themselves. Still, it is clear Iliffe thinks Newton divided his work among disciplines, and this included his theology and natural philosophy. 63

B. Divisions, Connections, and Why they Matter

Why does it matter to look at Newton’s nuanced connections and divisions in his writings, especially concerning his religion and natural philosophy? First, it matters because there is a serious scholarly conversation about the relationship, especially concerning Newton’s theology and natural philosophy and the relationship between the two. Indeed, the crux of Newton’s studies in nature and religion/theology are the source of much tension and debate. For around seventy years, there have been attempts to

61 Iliffe, “Newton’s Religious Life and Work,” 2013, Newton Project , http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/contexts/CNTX00001 (accessed February 8, 2016). 62 Iliffe, “Newton’s Religious Life and Work.” 63 Iliffe, “Newton’s Religious Life and Work.”

16 reconcile his “rational” work in natural philosophy and “irrational” work in theology and chymistry. 64

One significant aspect found with the interpretations of Dobbs and Force is that their focus is on Newton’s mind, particularly his focus on God, whether it is Force’s belief that Newton’s view of God influenced all aspects of his natural philosophy, or

Dobbs’s belief that Newton was on the search for God’s Truth in several areas of study.

While Snobelen has reasonably sought to look for “weak” and “strong” connections between Newton’s theology and natural philosophy, he also sees Newton’s theology and natural philosophy as significantly connected, and even sees him engaged in a larger project, the reformation of both theology and natural philosophy.

I.B. Cohen and George Smith are skeptical of connecting Newton’s religion and natural philosophy, stating that his “studies of biblical chronology, prophecy, or pure theology…do not have [a] close relationship with his science.” 65 Furthermore, they give more credence to his work with the calculus, experimentation, and mechanics than his work in chymistry and religion, saying that while the range of subjects is important for philosophers, the more “scientific” pursuits are more “important an influence in the historical development of thought.” 66

I disagree with such a position because Newton’s work in religion, theology, and chymistry are no less important for Newton scholarship than his work in physics, optics, or mathematics. The Principia and the Opticks and the calculus without a doubt transformed thought in mathematics and the natural sciences, and yet just because these works were publicly known and transformed thought, it should not dismiss the

64 Iliffe, “Newton’s Religious Life and Work.” 65 Cohen and Smith, 23. 66 Cohen and Smith, 28-9. Quotation from 29.

17 significance of chymical and religious/theological work for Newton. While they were not publicly influential, privately they were important enough for Newton to write several manuscripts on both, and are therefore worthy of historical study. As far as Newton’s theological studies go, Iliffe remarks that while at Trinity College, “[he] undertook an extraordinary programme of creative theological research, whose expansiveness, originality and radicalism was matched by only a handful of contemporaries.” 67 No doubt this is worthy of scholarly attention to better understand Newton’s intellectual interests, both as it concerns connections to his natural philosophy, and also his own theological outlook in an era of contentious Christian beliefs.

A second reason why the studies of these connections and divisions are important for historical research and inquiry is because as a genius and real – and mythologized – man of reason, the nuances of thought give a glimpse at epistemological stakes at play for

Newton. This is especially true when it comes to how Newton studied natural phenomenon, and how he approached Scripture. This is important because while Newton may or may not have had some larger idea about discovering all of God’s Truth, his writings appear to show he thought about these issues in similar and different ways.

Mamiani has argued that Newton’s hermeneutics and scientific method “did not differ formally,” and he also says that Newton thought there was a proper “understanding” that everyone had and whereby they could properly understand the unity of nature and

Scripture given by God. 68 This close connection is problematic, and will be explored more in Chapter II on Newton’s religious writings.

67 Iliffe, “Newton’s Religious Life and Work.” 68 Maurizio Mamiani, “Newton on prophecy and the Apocalypse,” in The Cambridge Companion to Newton (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 392, 397. Quotations from 392 and 397.

18 A third reason for why it matters to look at the nuances of connections and divisions in Newton’s writings is to get at a better understanding of the relationship of religion and natural philosophy for him, and also get a glimpse into the relationship between the study of nature and religion in early modern Europe. While looking at the scholarship can lead one to think religion was a strong complementary component of

Newton’s natural philosophy, or that his religion was at odds with his natural philosophy, as seen with Cohen, Smith, and even a recent episode of Cosmos where Tyson claims

Newton’s study of biblical chronology and chymical/alchemical pursuits “never led anywhere” and that Newton as also a “mystic” as well as a scientist, the relationship was real to the extent that focusing on God was a very significant feature to be found in his writings. 69 Even Iliffe admits this, pointing out “that one of the great contributors to the natural sciences believed that science was to be pursued for the greater understanding and glory of God.” 70 While this is by no means a new idea in the scholarship, some have overblown this relationship, particularly Dobbs’s assumption for a unity of Newton’s thought and goal to find God’s Truth, and Force’s call for a “seamless unity” in Newton’s thinking about nature, whereby the Lord God of Dominion was his constant epistemological grounding. Iliffe is helpful here when he critiques other scholars’ views that Newton “was engaged, designedly or not, in some holistic attempt to link ‘science’ and ‘religion.’ ” 71

69 Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey , Episode 3, “When Knowledge Conquered Fear,” DVD, directed by Brannon Braga (20 th Century Fox, 2005). While Tyson no doubt states Newton’s studies in chymistry and theology “never led anywhere” in the larger context of the progress he made in scientific endeavors, such a claim dismisses the importance that these areas of study had for Newton. 70 Iliffe, “Newton’s Religious Life and Work.” 71 Iliffe, “Newton’s Religious Life and Work.”

19 Furthermore, the issues of “science” and “religion” in Newton’s works allows us to see how one of early modern Europe’s most important thinkers thought about the relationship between the two, and can help us further speculate on the two areas in early modern thought. Andrew Cunningham, using the “General Scholium” as a supporting example, has claimed that natural philosophy was a God-oriented pursuit, that it “was about God and about God’s universe .” 72 Edward Grant, in retort, mentions that while by the early modern period one could mix theology and natural philosophy together by bringing God into the discussion of the latter, His inclusion did nothing to further natural knowledge along. Grant argues that Newton seldom included God in his writings, and that his addition of the “General Scholium” was done because the first edition of the

Principia was too much like Decartes’s mechanical philosophy, which was thought to be atheistic. 73

This leads into a fourth point. With Newton mythologized as an icon of

“modernity,” thus associating him with characteristics of that hard-to-define word such as rationality, science, technology, and secularism, what do all of his pursuits in theology and chymistry say about his thought? Can the “rational” Newton be reconciled with seeming “irrational” pursuits of Christ’s nature, placing God in natural philosophical texts, or searching for the Philosophers’ Stone? Of course he can. In looking at

Newton’s pursuits in all of his areas, we see that through-and-through, he was indeed a rational and reasonable man, who meticulously experimented with optics and chymistry,

72 Andrew Cunningham, “How the Principia Got Its Name; Or, Taking Natural Philosophy Seriously,” History of Science 29 (1991): 381. 73 Edward Grant, “God and Natural Philosophy: The Late Middle Ages and Sir Isaac Newton,” Early Science and Medicine 5, no. 3 (2000): 288-9; Cunningham, 384.

20 performed mathematical calculations and studied physics, and carefully tried to understand Scripture.

This is worth knowing in our own time, especially when in both popular and learned discussion, “science” and “religion” are seen at odds and in an opposing dichotomy. The actual history is much richer and nuanced, showing different areas of understanding and experience that, especially in the history of western science, were seen by people of the past as areas that were not mutually exclusive. Newton is but one man who grappled with both areas, which is illuminated in his writings. These show how the areas of “religion” and “science” were connected and divided with much nuance for this genius of thought, if only when it comes to the writings. I say the writings because what he put down on paper, which is surely a reflection of his thought on some level, does not necessarily match up with what he had going on in the back of his mind, or what he truly thought about his work, such as if they were all connected in some grand project for him.

On the level of the manuscripts, he appears to be holding to disciplinary distinctions, with smaller connections being made that, while significant, do not take away from the overall substance and focus of the disciplines in which he was working. 74

C. Going Forward

Going forward, I will show various connections and divisions in different ways.

First, I will approach the different “disciplines” and “genres” in a way similar to Iliffe, meaning I agree with him that Newton held to disciplinary divisions, though I include more analysis of his chymical and theological writings, as well as recent secondary literature. When he wrote about religion, his focus was on religion. When the topic was natural philosophy, that was the focus, whether celestial physics in the Principia or light

74 Iliffe, “Newton’s Religious Life and Work.”

21 in the Opticks . While the areas of “religion” and “natural philosophy” – which I take to include Newton’s chymical studies and experiments – were largely separate, there are connections between the two, specifically Newton’s views on God. This connection was not deeply integrated, though it was highly significant for Newton. It would appear that a significant part of Newton brining in God to his natural philosophy was a result of a very important factor in early modern thought, the Cartesian mechanical philosophy. This did not sit well with Newton, who thought Descartes’s understanding of space and matter were able to further atheism. 75 Certainly this was not good in Newton’s view, or the views of many European natural philosophers, all of whom lived in some sort of

Christian culture. Furthermore, we will see some evidence that natural philosophy would lead to better knowledge about God for Newton, leading both Snobelen and Iliffe to point out that through natural philosophy, one was able to give due reverence to God. 76

We will also see connections in his natural philosophy, especially his chymistry and optics, and also his idea of the “aether” and the “spirit” in the Principia . This, combined with his use of God at times as a creator of nature, shows that in terms of natural concerns, Newton was certainly ready to link different issues of nature together, whether it dealt with corpuscles of matter and corpuscles of light, or with God being present in the cosmos and giving symmetrical order to the bodies of animals. This is especially true when it comes to William Newman, a scholar of Newton’s alchemy, who

75 Grant, 289; Cunningham, 384; Snobelen, “‘The true frame of Nature,’” 250; Andrew Janiak, “Newton’s Philosophy,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , 2014, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton- philosophy/ (accessed February 23, 2016). 76 Snobelen, “‘The true frame of Nature,’” 259; Iliffe, “Newton’s Religious Life and Work.”

22 claims Newton tried to find a “theory of everything” with his chymical work “Of natures obvious laws & processes in vegetation.” 77

It can appear all of this is just splitting hairs. I say no. The nuanced connections all appear to point to a man who was deeply concerned with the study of nature. Or, put another way, in looking at the nuanced connections, especially in bringing God into the mix, his natural philosophy appears to be much more concerned with nature. This, in turn, presents doubts to claims of a “seamless unity” of theology and natural philosophy, and more credit to disciplinary distinctions, if only to an extent. Scholarship is open- ended, after all, and no one has all the answers. Newton still perplexes, even with trying to explore the nuances of how different areas of thought interacted and on what levels, and how they were also kept at a distance from one another.

D. Summary and Plan

Overall, I argue that Newton largely held to disciplinary divisions, and that connections to be found are largely to address concerns about nature. The next chapter deals with Newton’s religious beliefs and writings. My goal for this first chapter is to show that his religious writings are largely in the realm of “religion,” thereby holding to the claim of disciplinary divisions that Iliffe argues for. We will see that small connections do exist, including the methods of interpreting Scripture and natural philosophy, and also Newton as most certainly seeing his view of the original monotheistic religion as supporting a heliocentric view of the universe. Also, we will see that while Newton’s anti-Trinitarianism was important to him, he does not necessarily bring it into his natural philosophy.

77 Newman, “Introduction: Manuscripts of the Dibner Collection MS. 1031 B.,” Chymistry of Isaac Newton , http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/newton/mss/intro/ALCH00081 (accessed September 5, 2015).

23 The third chapter moves to Newton’s studies in chymistry. This chapter takes into account recent developments in the historiography of alchemy and chymistry, which have shown that far from being some pseudo-scientific endeavor, alchemy was actually quite practical in its applications. As a result, we also get a look into newer Newtonian scholarship on the subject, which, far from Dobbs’s religious interpretation, shows

Newton as engaged in a very “scientific” pursuit with chymistry. On a large level, it shows that while Newton made mention of God at times, the substance of his work was largely chymical. In one instance, Newton bases some of his own chymical work on a chymical/alchemical treatise that is not his own, one which includes heavy religious rhetoric. His own work stands in stark contrast, for while he records his own chymical experimentation, he brings in God only very briefly. We will also see significant connections between this study and Newton’s work in optics, particularly on his highly important experiments on the composition of white light. All of this considered, it should be seen that the connections that are made between God and chymistry and optics and chymistry show that Newton held to disciplinary divisions, but would bring in concepts from other areas that would help better understand nature as he understood it.

Finally, the fourth chapter will deal with three texts that have significant areas devoted to God’s involvement in nature: “De Gravitatione,” the “General Scholium” to the Principia , and the “Queries” to the Opticks . In all of these, I set out to show that while God is certainly present and plays a role in Newton’s discussion of different aspects of natural philosophy, God’s inclusion does not constitute a strong coherent connection between Newton’s religious studies and his natural philosophy. What we instead see is a connection with a theological component with Newton writing about

24 God’s presence and action in nature, though not necessarily with a strong anti-Trinitarian bent. His role, though, does not speak much to issues of “religion,” with the exception of the very last lines of the final query in the Opticks , Query 31, showing a connection of proper natural philosophy and worshipping God. Instead, we see Newton largely making the case for God’s creative power and His agency in nature. As such, God’s presence in

Newton’s writings is a largely natural-oriented one, and not one deeply enmeshed with his theological or religious studies.

By looking at these different levels of connection, I hope to show that on a disciplinary scale or scale of genre, Newton largely kept his different areas of study separate. Connections do exist on a smaller level, particularly when it comes to explaining nature, or trying to understand nature. As such, it appears reasonable to claim that while Newton may have had some larger or grand project in the back of his mind concerning all of his intellectual pursuits, the fact that his disciplines are sufficiently separate, especially concerning religion and natural philosophy, shows Newton wanted to keep these areas separate.

25

CHAPTER II

NEWTON’S RELIGIOUS WRITINGS

“1 That religion & Philosophy are to be preserved distinct. We are not to introduce divine revelations into Philosophy, nor philosophical opinions into religion.”— Keynes Ms. 6, post-1710

“And if natural Philosophy in all its Parts, by pursuing this Method, shall at length be perfected, the Bounds of moral Philosophy will be also enlarged. For so far as we can know by natural Philosophy what is the first Cause, what Power he has over us, and what Benefits we receive from him, so far our Duty towards him, as well as that towards one another, will appear to us by the Light of Nature.”— Opticks 2 nd ed., Book III, 1718

As seen from the above quotations, there is clearly some sort of tension present in

Newton’s thinking about religion and natural philosophy. The first shows a short, blunt statement written in private, a musing largely dividing religion from philosophy.78 The second is a published statement from a later edition of one of his most important natural philosophical works, in which he connects the study of nature to learning about the “first

Cause,” or God, and certain attributes of God. 79 Iliffe states the tensions found in his work are probably “junk residue” as a result of writing in different ways, to different audiences, and on different subjects. 80 Whether or not junk residue is present, it is clear

78 Newton, “Seven Statements on Religion,” post-1710, Keynes MS. 6, Newton Project , http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00006 (accessed January 30, 2016). 79 Newton, Opticks: Or, A Treatise of the Reflections, Refractions, Inflexions and Colours of Light. The Second Edition, with Additions (London: 1718), 381, Newton Project , http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/NATP00051 (accessed April 2, 2016). 80 Iliffe, “Abstract Considerations,” 450.

26 that looking over Newton’s entire works shows easily-seen tensions between religious and natural philosphica aspects.

What we shall see going forward in this first chapter is that for Newton, his religious and theological studies were quite distinct from his natural philosophical endeavors. As disciplines, they were largely separate, keeping in line with Iliffe’s argument for disciplinary divisions. 81 These disciplines were not completely separated, though, particularly if we look to theological concerns. 82 By showing this large distinction between these two areas at the beginning of this study, we can better show the smaller connections that do exist in Newton’s natural philosophy when it comes to God.

This chapter will focus on Newton’s religious writings, and especially how they are primarily religious in nature. First, some background and context of Newton’s beliefs will orient the reader to Newton’s religious concerns, particularly what is the most unique aspect of his theology, his rejection of the Trinity in Christian doctrine. Here, I take issue with Force’s position that Newton’s theology played a strong role in uniting his work to his natural philosophy. Second, I will address a connection other scholars have seen in

Newton’s thought, particularly between the interpretive rules from unpublished writings on Revelation and his rules for how to conduct natural philosophy from a later version of the published Principia . What we will see here is that while there may be some slight connections between the two methods presented, they do not constitute a strong

81 This falls in with the large argument in Iliffe’s “Abstract Considerations,” 429, about Newton working within disciplinary boundaries. 82 Furthermore, Iliffe writes, “I do not, of course, rule out the importance of finding conceptual links between different areas of Newton’s work, but suggest only that an essentialised and psychologised ‘mind’ should not be thoughtlessly invoked as the nescio quid that underpins the connectedness of his work.” “Abstract Considerations,” 451.

27 connection between natural philosophy and religion or theology. 83 Third, I want to explore an area that Newton thought did have connections: ancient religion and ancient natural philosophy, especially concerning a heliocentric cosmos. Fourth, I want to conclude on a note to the effect that while even though there was a disciplinary separations, there was a strong emphasis on God when it came to Newton’s natural philosophy.

A. Newton the Anti-Trinitarian

When it came to studying and research, theology was the most important to

Newton. Indeed, he thought it the most important characteristic of his life. 84 During his life, his theological research ranged over several subjects, including Christology, prophecy, church history, how Christian doctrine changed over time (especially after the

Council of Nicaea in AD 325), religions predating Christianity, and the texts of Scripture and the Church Fathers. Even though Newton wrote much on religion and theology, he did not publish works during his life, and only some on prophecy and chronology were taken to the printing press after he died. Newton probably would not have minded this.

His writings made clear that in the religious environment of his day, he would have been considered a heretic. 85

He studied theology on his own while a student at Trinity College, Cambridge, and during the 1670s, began to form some of his signature beliefs about Christianity, such as his view that the early church had been corrupted. Another interesting belief he came to during this time was one that was no doubt the defining aspect of his religious

83 This falls in line somewhat with Snobelen’s argument for “weak” and “strong” connections between Newton’s natural philosophy and theology, see “‘God of Gods,’” 196-208. 84 Iliffe, Newton , 132. 85 Iliffe, “Newton’s Religious Life and Work.”

28 character. He came to view the Trinity as a falsehood. For him, Jesus was a divine figure, but He was not God. To put Jesus on the same level as God amounted to idolatry, something he particularly loathed. Had this view been made public, he would have been dismissed from his studies at Cambridge, and he would not have held later leadership roles in his life. 86 While other scholars have labeled Newton’s theology as “Arian” – referring to the position held by Arius at the Council of Nicaea that Christ was not of the same substance as God – Iliffe points out that because of the eclecticism of Newton’s beliefs, a label is hard to place on the man. 87

Newton’s writings attest to this view of separating God and Jesus. In one document, which Westfall dates to 1672-5, we get a view into a younger Newton’s remarks on the subject, particularly in twelve points that relate to the submission of

Christ to God. 88 In the actual manuscript, one statement reads, “The {word} God is no where in the scriptures used to signify more then one of the thre persons at once.” 89 A particularly strong one states:

When, after some heretiques had taken Christ for a meare man & others for the Supreme God, Saint Iohn in his Gospel indeavoured to state his nature so that men might have from thence a right apprehension of him & avoid those hæresies & to that end call him the word or λογος [logos]: we must suppose that {he inten}ded that {ter}me in the same sence that it was taken in the world before he used it when in like manner applied to an intelligent being. For if the Apostles had not used words as they found them how could they expect to have been rightly understood. Now the term λογος befor Saint Iohn wrote, was {generally} used in the sense of the Platonists, when applied to an intelligent being, & the Arrians understand it in the same sence, & therefore theirs is the true sense of Saint Iohn. 90

86 Iliffe, “Newton’s Religious Life and Work;” Westfall, 354. 87 Iliffe, “Newton’s Religious Life and Work.” On views that Newton was an Arian Christian, see Westfall, 312-9, and Force, especially 78-80. 88 Westfall, 315-6, and n. 104. 89 Newton, “Miscellaneous notes and extracts on the Temple, the Fathers, prophecy, Church history, doctrinal issues, etc.,” Yahuda MS. 14, http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00057 (accessed February 1, 2016). 90 Newton, Yahuda MS. 14.

29

This quote is telling. While Newton not only places Jesus in a different position from

God the Father as the “Word” from the opening of the Gospel of John, he states quite clearly that the Arians understood it in the same way as the Gospel’s author. Does this then make Newton an Arian? Not necessarily. It may be better to state Newton was an anti-Trinitarian, as this gets straight to how Newton understood the nature of Christ, and which was the defining feature of his theology. Furthermore, just because Newton claimed in this document that the Arians held what he considered the correct view of

Christ’s nature does not mean that he labeled or thought of himself as such.

From Newton’s later life, we have one document that gives further insight. In

Keynes MS 8, which the Newton Project dates to after 1710, in a list of twelve statements about religion, two of the articles show Newton putting Jesus in a lower position than

God. 91 The first article reads, “There is one God the Father everliving, omnipresent, omniscient, almighty, the maker of heaven & earth, & one Mediator between God & Man the Man Christ Iesus.” 92 Particularly interesting here is Newton’s use of “Mediator” and

“Man” to describe Jesus, which he appears to be pulling straight from Paul’s first epistle to Timothy. 93 Three more articles down, Newton further makes sure to not show God and Jesus as the same:

The father is omniscient & hath all knowledge originally in his own breast, & communicates knowledge of future things to Iesus Christ & none in heaven or earth or under the earth is worthy to receive knowledge of future things immediately from the father except the Lamb. And therefore the testimony of Iesus is the Spirit of Prophesy & Iesus is the Word or Prophet of God. 94

91 Manuscript number 8 on this page gives the supposed date: http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/prism.php?id=94&loc=5 (accessed February 17, 2016). 92 Newton, “Twelve articles on religion,” post-1710, Keynes MS. 8, Newton Project , http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00008 (accessed February 21, 2016). 93 For this, see 1 Timothy, 2:5 (KJV), “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus[.]” 94 Newton, Keynes MS. 8.

30

Again, Christ is not equal to the Father, but God’s “Word” or “Prophet.” Other articles make his point of separation between God and Jesus, but the final has a good deal of strength behind it, which Newton appears to be taking from Paul’s first epistle to the

Corinthians: “To us there is but one God the father of whom are all things & we of him,

& one Lord Iesus Christ by whom are all things & we by him. that is, we are to worship the father alone as God Almighty & Iesus alone as the Lord the Messiah the great King the Lamb of God who was slain & hath redeemed us with his blood & made us kings &

Priests.” 95

Force has argued that Newton’s theology and study of nature were tightly connected together. For him, “Newton’s thought is a seamless unity of theology, metaphysics, and natural science,” whereby

God’s Dominion, i.e., the total supremacy of God’s power and will over every aspect of creation, colors every aspect of his views about how matter (and the laws regulating the ordinary operation of matter) is created, preserved, reformed, and, occasionally, interdicted by a voluntary and direct act of God’s sovereign will and power. 96

While Newton thought God needed to intervene in nature at times, and was the God of dominion in the “General Scholium” in the Principia , this does not necessarily mean

Newton’s theology was deeply integrated in his natural philosophy, including the

Arianism that Force thinks Newton believes in. 97 Newton’s invocation of God here may be generic, and not wedded to any specific theological view of God, or any particular

Christology.

95 Newton, Keynes MS. 8. 1 Corinthians 8:6 (KJV) reads, “But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” 96 Force, 84. 97 Force, 79.

31 In comparison, Robert Boyle also may have held a similar view as to God’s supreme action in the universe, though he did not clearly explain such a view when he wrote, “God [is] the Author of the universe & free Establisher of the Laws of motion, whose generall Concourse is necessary to the conservation & Efficacy of every particular

Physicall Agent.” 98 Boyle and Newton express God’s providential and active power in similar terms. Since we have no evidence to suggest Boyle held heterodox Christological views similar to Newton’s, his declaration of God’s controlling agency could be more generically theistic, as could Newton’s. In either case, it does not point to the “seamless unity” Force calls for between Newton’s theology and natural philosophy.

B. Methodological Similarities and Differences in Scripture and Natural Philosophy

Maurizio Mamiani has taken the position that Newton’s religion and natural philosophy were connected. 99 The connection here, Mamiani thinks, lies in Newton trying to find truth, whether it be about nature or theology. Therefore, he tried to find some sort of consistent method that could find truth in these two realms. In making his point, Mamiani reminds the reader to not look anachronistically on Newton as a scientist or a theologian, but a philosopher as the term applied at his time. While Mamiani does not directly define the criteria of a seventeenth-century philosopher, it appears it would include someone interested in subjects ranging from natural philosophy to mathematics and theology. 100 In order to better show this connection between Newton’s theology and natural philosophy, he looks to two methodological lists found in Newton’s writings.

The first appears to come from Yahuda MS 1.1, an “Untitled Treatise on Revelation”

98 J.J. MacIntosh provides this quote from Boyle, as well as the fact that it is not explained. J.J. MacIntosh, “Robert Boyle,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , 2014, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/boyle/#4 (accessed February 2, 2016). 99 Mamiani, 388. 100 Mamiani, 390-1.

32 dating from the 1670s to the 1680s. This document includes sections titled “Rules for interpreting the words & language in Scripture,” “Rules for methodising/construing the

Apocalyps,” and “Rules for interpreting the Apocalyps.” 101 The other set is the “Rules for the Study of Natural Philosophy” at the beginning of Book III of the Principia .102

These two documents help to maintain Mamiani’s point about Newton’s natural philosophy and theology being connected. He writes, “Newton’s hermeneutical method did not differ formally from his scientific method, even if the subject matters were very different.” 103

On one hand, Mamiani appears to be on to something important. Pointing out

Newton tried to find a method by which he would be able to find truth in both theology and religion sounds reasonable. He wrote at one point, “Truth is ever to be found in simplicity, & not in the multiplicity & confusion of things.” 104 It would make sense he would want a singular method by which to work out the problems of prophecy or the natural world. Yet, as Mamiani shows, Newton worked with different methods over the years. 105 This does not necessarily mean Newton was trying to find a single method by which to know information both natural and theological. Iliffe mentions how Newton held to disciplinary distinctions, and this included methodological ones. 106 For instance,

Newton thought his religious studies were built upon a basis of faith, and could not be

101 Mamiani, 391-400; Newton, “Untitled Treatise on Revelation,” c. 1670s-1680s, Yahuda MS. 1.1, Newton Project , http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00135 (accessed February 21, 2016). The dating appears in the section on this document under “Newton’s Religious Writings,” Newton Project , http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/prism.php?id=44 (accessed February 21, 2016). 102 Mamiani, 391-400; Newton, Principia , 794-6. 103 Mamiani, 397. 104 Newton, Yahuda MS. 1.1. 105 Mamiani, 396-400. 106 Iliffe, “Abstract Considerations,” 429; Iliffe, “Newton’s Religious Life and Work.”

33 shown by more rational and “mathematical” understanding. 107 So, it may be that different methods were needed for different areas of study for Newton. Such would show more disconnection between Newton’s religious and natural philosophical thought.

Indeed, Mamiani’s claim that Newton’s theology and natural philosophy were always connected may very well be incorrect, as the two do not appear to show deep integration of method. 108 When comparing the different methodologies from “Revelation” and the

“Rules,” both similarities and differences are present, though this does not lead to a strong connection between theology and natural philosophy.

In the paragraph that Iliffe appears to be referring to above, Newton does not necessarily show a strict methodological difference between understanding prophecy and nature. In “Revelation,” Newton writes, “I could wish they would consider how contrary it is to God’s purpose that the truth of his religion should be as obvious & perspicuous to all men as a mathematical demonstration.” 109 A few lines up, concerning the Scriptures,

Newton appears to contradict himself: “…a meer naturall man, how wicked soever, who will but read it, may judg of it & perceive the strength of it with as much perspicuity & certainty as he can a demonstration of Euclide.” 110 This is a point brought up by

Mamiani as well, who also quotes this passage. 111 Furthermore, after comparing the understanding of Scripture and mathematics, he writes,

Tis enough that it is able to move the assent of those which he hath chosen; & for the rest who are so incredulous, it is just that they should be permitted to dy in their sins. Here then is the wisdom of God, that he hath so framed the Scriptures

107 Iliffe, “Newton’s Religious Life and Work.” 108 Mamiani, 388. 109 Newton, Yahuda MS. 1.1. 110 Newton, Yahuda MS. 1.1. 111 Mamiani, 397.

34 as to discern between the good and the bad, that they should be demonstration to the one & foolishness to the other. 112

This limitation in understanding Scripture is not surprising given Newton thought his beliefs more developed than other Christians, even seeing himself like an ancient priest who had an obligation to guard knowledge. 113 Mamiani also refers to this “dogmatism” of Newton, concerning his belief that his understanding of interpreting Scripture was the correct one. 114

Interpreting Scripture for Newton was something he would have considered slightly different than simply understanding something about the natural world. When it came to interpreting Scripture, Newton thought that all had the ability, given by God, to understand what it had to say on the matter of salvation. For more complicated aspects of

Scripture, only more mature Christians had the ability to decipher what the text meant. 115

Snobelen also mentions this understanding of the “adept,” the true, and few, Christians, who could see more deeply into religious truths. Such an exclusive understanding was something he also carried over into his natural philosophical studies, says Snobelen.116

Mamiani has claimed that concerning prophecy, Newton thought only certain people could understand the true meaning of it as a result of God giving such understanding to some, thereby showing who was and was not a true Christian. Furthermore, this

“understanding” could discern God’s wisdom in both Scripture and nature. 117

Regardless of these tensions present, this does not necessarily mean there was a strong connection between Newton’s theology and natural philosophy as he sought truth,

112 Newton, Yahuda MS. 1.1. 113 Iliffe, “Newton’s Religious Life and Works;” Mamiani, 392. 114 Mamiani, 397, 400. Quotation from 397. 115 Iliffe, “Newton’s Religious Life and Works.” 116 Snobelen, “‘God of Gods,’” 204-8. Quotation from 204. 117 Mamiani, 391-2. Quotation from 392.

35 as Mamiani states. 118 If the same sort of mentality can discern the truths of nature and

God, this does not point to a connection between the two areas of thought. It means the same mind has the ability to think in different subjects, and in different ways. Truth was most certainly what Newton sought in studying nature and theology. Implying that the two areas were not distinct, though, is not necessarily correct.

In comparing the basic principles of both lists, one similarity concerns the importance of making things simple to understand. In “Revelation,” under “Rules for methodising/construing the Apocalyps,” Newton states in rule number nine, “To choose those constructions which without straining reduce things to the greatest simplicity.” 119

Similarly, we see a call to simplicity in the “Rules” when Newton writes, “No more causes of natural things should be admitted than are both true and sufficient to explain their phenomena.” 120 For natural phenomena, then, no extra explanations are needed to properly explain these phenomena. Indeed, in explaining the rule more, Newton writes,

“For nature is simple and does not indulge in the luxury of superfluous causes.” 121

Mamiani also points to the similarity between this addendum and rule nine. 122 Another similarity also comes from rules 2 and 3 in the “Revelation” manuscript, whereby

Newton states, “To assigne but one meaning to one place of scripture,” as well as, “To keep as close as may be to the same sense of words.” 123 This is indeed similar to rule 1 from the list in the Principia , which states, “We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.” 124 In both

118 Mamiani, 391. 119 Newton, Yahuda MS. 1.1. 120 Newton, Principia , 794. 121 Newton, Principia , 794. 122 Mamiani, 398-9. 123 Mamiani, 398. 124 Mamiani, 398.

36 cases, we see attempts to use only relevant knowledge in order to understand either

Scripture or nature. This may be a result of Newton pulling his methodological constructions for Revelation from Robert Sanderson’s Logicae Artis Compendium , the

“Summary of Logical Art,” which he acquired as a student at Cambridge. 125 Indeed, the passage Mamiani uses to show the similarity between the above quoted rules, the “Law of brevity,” states, “Nothing should be left out or be superfluous in a discipline.” 126

Differences are also noticeable between the two lists. For one, the subject matter is different. “Revelation” deals with written texts, and time and time again in the list, there are references on how to properly interpret the Scriptures. 127 This is different from the “Rules,” in which Newton is dealing with natural phenomena and experimentation. 128

Another difference, at least to a degree, lies in the rigidity of the methods. The “Rules” are slightly more flexible than in “Revelation,” at least in tone. In rule four of the former,

Newton notes that unless proper evidence presents itself, the results of experiment and induction need not be sullied by hypotheses:

In experimental philosophy, propositions gathered from phenomena by induction should be considered either exactly or very nearly true notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses, until yet other phenomena make such propositions either more exact or liable to exceptions. This rule should be followed so that arguments based on induction may not be nullified by hypotheses. 129

Newton appears stricter in tone when it comes to his interpretation of Scripture, indeed playing into Mamiani’s claim of Newton being dogmatic. 130 In rule 12, under the heading “Rules for interpreting the Apocalyps,” Newton states, “The Construction of the

125 Mamiani, 388, 391, 397. 126 Mamiani, 398. 127 Newton, Yahuda MS. 1.1. 128 Newton, Principia , 794-6. 129 Newton, Principia , 796. 130 Mamiani, 397, 400.

37 Apocalyps after it is once determined must be made the rule of interpretations; And all interpretations rejected which agree not with it.” 131 Under rule eleven: “Hence if any man shall contend that my Construction of the Apocalyps is uncertain, upon pretence that it may be possible to find out other ways, he is not to be regarded unless he shall show wherein what I have done may be mended.” 132 Mamiani notes that the reason for this stringent interpretation was because incorrect interpretation led to heresy. 133 No doubt

Newton thought the gravity of interpreting Scripture was more important than understanding nature, hence the stronger appearance in tone. While both methods allow for corrections, it would be easier to amend findings in nature as opposed to Scripture, for while one might lead to incorrect knowledge, the other could lead to heresy.

The similarities and differences between these two lists show that while Newton wanted to discover truth in both areas, the methods have different contexts. With one, he was trying to understand the nature of Scripture and prophecy, with the other natural phenomena. Even though Newton certainly wanted to find truth in both realms, this does not show a tight connection between the two subjects. If both methods are indeed similar, this still does not tightly connect Newton’s theology and natural philosophy. It shows that a very curious and intellectual man thought similarly about the two. This is not necessarily show a deep integration of subjects, as Mamiani suggests. Instead, it shows the working of a mind wanting to understand these two areas.

C. Ancient Philosophy and Ancient Religion

One of Newton’s largely religious works also gives a glimpse into his views on natural philosophy, and in particular the connections between the two. This connection,

131 Newton, Yahuda MS. 1.1. 132 Newton, Yahuda MS. 1.1. 133 Newton, Mamiani, 397, 400.

38 though, dealt with the natural philosophy and religion of ancient societies, and not of early modern England. Other scholars have remarked on Newton’s views in this area, including Iliffe and Snobelen. Before delving into what these two have to say, let us look at some notes showing Newton’s studies into ancient societies and religions, found in

Yahuda MS 17.3, which date to the 1680s and early 1690s, and Yahuda MS 41, which dates to around the early 1690s. 134

According to Newton, the earliest religions were not those dedicated to worshipping the stars or nature, but the Vestal religion. This was a religion whose primary worship focused on “a fire burned perpetually at the centre of a sacred place for the purpose of performing sacrifices. For the Vestal worship was the most ancient of all.” He traces this religion apparently to the Tyrrhenes, who, according to Marsilius

Lesbius, were around “from the time of the flood and the golden age,” perhaps drawing off of Ovid’s Metamorphoses . These Tyrrhenes were to be found in Italy. These people had only two gods, Janus and Vesta. In another instance, this time from Dionysisus of

Halicarnassus, the religion of Vesta dated back to one of the founders of Rome, Romulus.

He also cites evidence to be found in the cult of Mithras among the Persians, in which the worship space consisted of a continuous fire on a central altar. The Egyptians also apparently held to this religion, though it took Moses to revive it and cast away the

“superstitions” that had built upon it. Newton even thought that this Vestal religion was practiced by Abraham. Citing the story in Genesis where he was going to sacrifice his

134 Newton, “Notes on ancient religions,” 1680s-early 1690s, Yahuda MS. 17.3, Newton Project , http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/translation/TRAN00012 (accessed February 4, 2016); Newton, “Draft chapters of a treatise on the origin of religion and its corruption,” c. early 1690s, Yahuda MS. 41, Newton Project , http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00077 (accessed February 4, 2016). The dating for both can be found here: http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/prism.php?id=44 (accessed February 4, 2016).

39 son Isaac, Newton notes Abraham took fire with him on the journey to perform the task.

Newton also connects this religion to the Assyrians, as well as to a writer cited by

Josephus, called Hestiaeus. According to him, as Newton interpreted it, Noah and his offspring, after the flood, went to Babylonia with vessels related to this religion.135

Newton thought this religion was a reflection of nature. He writes, “Now the thinking behind this institution was that the God of Nature should be worshipped in a temple that symbolises Nature as in a mirror of the Deity.” He cites several authors to support his point, including Cicero, Macrobius, Seneca, and Clement, no doubt the

Church Father of Alexandria. These authors, Newton contends, thought the worship space with the central fire represented “the system of the world,” with disagreements about the fire representing either the sun or earth. He goes on to give examples of those who thought it represented the sun, including the Persians and the Magi, and by way of

Plutarch, “Numa Pompilius and the Pythagoreans.” He also brings up a point that would have been familiar in his own day and time, that of the microcosm. The Greeks, he writes, saw humans as a microcosm, and that when people turned around the fire, they

“[were] revolving in the true system of the world.” He also likens ritual practice at the

Temple in Jerusalem to this reflection of nature, by way of Josephus. The priests would circle around the fire in the temple, and as they went up into the Holy of Holies, they went by seven lamps, which Newton thought were symbolic of the planets. He traces this back from Moses to the Egyptians and to Noah, and claims that the religion “is not merely vulgar but involves something mystical.” Furthermore, “The true system of the world has been presented in this symbol to everyone from the beginning, so that anyone

135 Newton, Yahuda MS. 17.3. Similar description and analysis is given in Westfall, 353-6.

40 of keen mind from every people might gather the truth from it, and thus come to know

God from his works by means of their own religion.” 136

Of particular interest here is that there is more focus on religion in particular, as opposed to simply showing the relationship between God and nature. A primal religion, consisting of a worship service revolving around a holy fire, was supposed to represent the natural order of things, with Newton certainly supporting the view that the fire represented the sun. 137 All of this, in turn, was supposed to reflect the Creator. Again, the worship area “symbolises Nature as in a mirror of the Deity.” 138 All of this points to a religion that certainly spoke to an idea that would have been present in Newton’s day, the scala naturae , the “ladder of nature” also known as “the Great Chain of Being” in which everything in creation was ordered in a hierarchy reaching all the way up to

God. 139 This hierarchical chain is related to the idea of the microcosm and macrocosm.

Both these words, coming from Greek, respectively mean “little ordered world” and

“large ordered world.” The macrocosm referred to the cosmos, while the microcosm referred to human bodies. Plato understood these terms to mean that humans ought to look to the orderly cosmos to know how to act in a moral and orderly way. 140 Newton appears to make this connection when citing Plutarch: “The turning of the worshippers is said to be an image of the orbit of the world. ”141 Newton then adds, “In the same sense the Greeks called man a Microcosm. They implied that by turning about the central fire

136 Newton, Yahuda MS. 17.3. Similar description and analysis is given in Westfall, 353-6. 137 Newton, Yahuda MS. 17.3; Iliffe, Newton , 96-7. 138 Newton, Yahuda MS. 17.3. 139 Principe, The Scientific Revolution: A Very Short Introduction (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 22-3. Quotations from 22 and 23. 140 Principe, The Scientific Revolution , 23. Quotations from 23. Principe notes that for early moderns, the primary concern with this idea was astrological, namely how the planets influenced human organs. See 23- 4. 141 Newton, Yahuda MS. 17.3.

41 we men are revolving in the true system of the world.” 142 This focus on the micro- and macrocosm appears to also make an appearance in Newton’s understanding of the ancient worship in the Temple of Jerusalem as well, specifically when he mentions how the priests, once they had circled the fire and passed the lamps that Newton writes represented the planets, would walk up to the Holy of Holies, which is likened to “the highest heaven where God sat among the Cherubim.” 143 Newton, then, is very focused on an understanding that the original religion was one that was deeply connected to an understanding of the construction of the cosmos. Westfall also describes this religion as

“founded upon the recognition of God in His creation.” 144

Iliffe mentions how this “Newtonian religion” consisted of worship that occurred in nature and reflected the order of the world. The priests, who were also natural philosophers, did not let their religious mysteries be known to those of a lower status, and so used allegories to express the truths of religion and nature. However, these allegories became corrupted once they started to be interpreted literally, and this in turn led to the worship of idols and the belief that the earth was the center of the universe. 145

Newton makes quite clear the connection between corrupting religion and natural philosophy among the ancients. He writes, “Consequent on the corruption of that ancient religion many corruptions occurred in the philosophy which that religion adumbrated.”

For one, the vestal fire became representative of a fire that was said to reside inside the earth, and that Vesta was equated with the earth. 146 No doubt this led to the idea of

142 Newton, Yahuda MS. 17.3. 143 Newton, Yahuda MS. 17.3. 144 Westfall, 356. 145 Iliffe, “Newton’s Religious Life and Work.” 146 Newton, Yahuda MS. 17.3.

42 geocentrism in Newton’s eyes. 147 Furthermore, Newton thinks corruption in ancient religion led to the notion that souls were responsible for moving heavenly bodies. As well, these dead souls were thought to reside in planets, and were worshipped as gods. In taking literally the location of the planets “which had been mystically posited by the

Egyptians and Chaldeans” and also another rendering of the location of the planets different from this, this in turn led to orbits which no doubt Newton thought were incorrect with respect to the geocentric view of the cosmos.148 Concerning the classical four elements,

mystical Philosophers included [them] with the Planets to complete the complement of the twelve Gods, and especially that they are the first principles of things, of which, mingled with the minima, all sublunar things are composed in accordance with the four primary qualities. 149

Such corruption may have come from the idea that Newton read his ideas into older sources, which in turn led him to think he was restoring religion and natural philosophy. 150

We also see much of the same information in Yahuda MS. 41, including

Newton’s claims that this Vestal religion was the oldest, was “universal,” and was corrupted. 151 He describes rather clearly how he thinks this original religion was corrupted:

Now the corruption of this religion I take to have been after this manner. ffirst the frame of the heavens consisting of Sun Moon & Starts being represented in the Prytanæa [Vestal worship area] as the real temple of the Deity men were led by degrees to pay a veneration to these sensible objects & began at length to worship them as visible seats of divinity. And because the sacred fire was a type of the Sun & all the elements are parts of that universe which is the temple of God they

147 Westfall, 355. 148 Newton, Yahuda MS. 17.3. 149 Newton, Yahuda MS. 17.3. 150 Iliffe, “Newton’s Religious Life and Work.” 151 Newton, Yahuda MS. 41.

43 soon began to have these also in veneration. For tis agreed that Idolatry began in the worship of the heavenly bodies & elements. 152

So, what is significant concerning Newton’s studying and writing about ancient religion and ancient natural philosophy? For our current concern, why is the connection important between the two, if it even is important? I turn to Snobelen, for he has argued

Newton was involved in a “dual reformation” of both religion and natural philosophy from a state of corruption, and in turn reforming and bringing it to a restored purity.

Furthermore, Snobelen thinks even though Newton had some separation between the two disciplines, they were for the philosopher strongly connected. 153

Snobelen notes the background to Newton’s reformation, for Christianity was experiencing the work of Protestant reformers who thought the Church had become corrupt, and natural philosophy was also experiencing reform from men such as

Copernicus and Vesalius. While these two most certainly thought of themselves as

“modern,” they still mentioned they were pulling from past sources, so that they drew in part on the prisca sapientia . Also mentioned are Descartes and Francis Bacon, who wanted to institute new ways of philosophizing about nature. 154 Other scholars, such as

John Hedley Brooke and Peter Harrison, also note reforms in both religion and natural philosophy. 155

Iliffe also sets Newton in this context of reform, where he, and others as well, wanted to change the current state of knowledge by looking to ancient knowledge that some thought could be traced back to before the flood and even to Adam in Eden.

Furthermore, the Reformation sought to return the Church to its original state, with some

152 Newton, Yahuda MS. 41. 153 Snobelen, “‘The true frame of Nature,’” 225-6. 154 Snobelen, “‘The true frame of Nature,’” 226-8. 155 Snobelen, “‘The true frame of Nature,’” 228-9.

44 such as Newton thinking reform had not gone far enough. No doubt this helped fuel

Newton’s studies into the ancient Vestal religion. While Iliffe places Newton among others in their search for original knowledge, he notes Newton’s originality in reading his own thoughts, his “Newtonianism,” into ancient authors’ “basic, if hidden truths he was supposedly rediscovering.” 156

D. Conclusion

Looking through many of Newton’s works that pertain specifically to different areas of religion – theology, church history, prophecy – it is obvious they focus on religion. Concerning our current study, it is noticeable that natural philosophy is virtually a non-issue in these writings, with the exception of the ancients believing in a heliocentric cosmos, as Newton saw it. In one instance later in his life, Newton stated rather flatly “That religion & Philosophy are to be preserved distinct. We are not to introduce divine revelations into Philosophy, nor philosophical opinions into religion.” 157

While his religious works needed no philosophical input, we shall see later that inserting

God into natural philosophy was fine, and understandably so. It would be reasonable to discuss the creator of all nature in natural philosophy, after all.

God is certainly a connecting thread between the two disciplines, but this does not amount to a deep integration between religion/theology and natural philosophy. It still shows that when it came to religion, Newton was focused on issues such as the nature of

Christ, understanding prophecy, and studying the history of the church. When he was doing natural philosophy, he was trying to understand nature, the Creator of which was fair game for discussion and inclusion. Some connections that are present, though,

156 Iliffe, “Newton’s Religious Life and Works.” 157 Newton, Keynes MS. 6.

45 include heliocentrism as an element in both ancient religion and natural philosophy, some similarities for interpreting Scripture and nature (though differences are also present), as well as Newton wanting to reform both religion and natural philosophy. While these small connections exist, on a disciplinary level, Newton appears to have kept his religious studies separate from his natural philosophical ones.

46

CHAPTER III

“BEYOND THE REACH OF HUMAN ART AND INDUSTRY”: NEWTON’S WORK IN CHYMISTRY

“He very rarely went to Bed, till 2 or 3 of the clock, sometimes not till 5 or 6, lying about 4 or 5 hours, especially at spring & ffall of the Leaf, at which Times he us'd to imploy about 6 weeks in his Elaboratory, the ffire scarcely going out either Night or Day, he siting up one Night, as I did another till he had finished his Chymical Experiments, in the Performances of which he was the most accurate, strict, exact: What his Aim might be, I was not able to penetrate into but his Paine, his Diligence at those sett times, made me think, he aim'd at somthing beyond the Reach of humane Art & Industry.” – Letter from Humphrey Newton to John Conduitt, January 17, 1727/8, on Isaac Newton’s chymical works.

The subject of early modern alchemy, which is now better termed “chymistry,” as both “chemistry” and “alchemy” pursued the same goals, was one Newton had a very strong interest in. 158 As such, when I look to Newton actively working in this field, I will use the term chymistry, though I will use alchemy and chymistry when discussing the context Newton worked in, as well as the historiography. He both studied alchemical/chymical texts and performed chymical experiments. Not only has Newton’s work with chymistry undergone some new developments, but so has the study of chymistry in the historiography.

158 “About Isaac Newton and Alchemy,” Chymistry of Isaac Newton , http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/newton/project/about.do (accessed April 2, 2016); Principe, The Scientific Revolution , 80. Quotations from 80; Principe, “Reflections on Newton’s Alchemy in Light of the New Historiography of Alchemy,” in Newton and Newtonianism: New Studies , eds. James E. Force and Sarah Hutton (Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004), 208.

47 As we will see below, Newton’s work in chymistry was much more of a practical pursuit than some past scholarship has shown. There are persuasive recent arguments for important connections from his chymical to his optical work, but it appears Newton was very much interested in chymistry in and of itself. 159 Concerning religion, we will see that neither it nor God has much relevance to Newton’s work here, which stands in strong contrast to Dobbs’s argument. While alchemy makes reference to religion, it is a product of the context that such work came out of, and is not what would today be called a highly religious study. 160

This chapter will be divided up in the following ways. First, I will give some background to the historiography of alchemy/chymistry and also explain some characteristics of the subject itself. Next, I will look at three chymical documents by

Newton: Keynes MS. 33, the “Idea Of a table booke,” also known as Cambridge,

Portsmouth Add. MS. 3975, and “Of Nature’s Obvious Laws and Processes,” or Dibner

MS 1031 B. These documents will not only show Newton was interested in chymistry for practical purposes, but that it was neither deeply integrated with religion or theology, nor was including God a strong component of Newton’s chymistry. Third, I want to look at the connections found between Newton’s optics and his chymistry. This will show a significant connection between the two disciplines, but it does not amount to a unity of thought for Newton. Fourth, I want to look at the different aims Newton may have had for his chymical work, including matter study, and even a possible “theory of everything”

159 For the connections to Newton’s optical work, see all of Newman, “Newton’s Early Optical Theory and its Debt to Chymistry,” 1-42, Chymistry of Isaac Newton , http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/newton/html/Newton_optics-alchemy_Jacquart_paper.pdf (accessed November 2, 2015). 160 Principe, The Secrets of Alchemy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013), 192-4.

48 for nature found in “Of Nature’s Obvious Laws and Processes.” 161 Fourth, I will look at

Newton’s use of ancient myth and history with his chymistry. This will include looking at two more documents, Keynes MS 29, and Keynes MS 32.

A. The History and Historiography of Alchemy/Chymistry

The study and practice of alchemy was well established in the early modern period, during which it flourished at the time of the “Scientific Revolution.” 162 In the seventeenth century, the terms alchemy and chemistry most often meant the same thing.

It was not until the beginning of the following century that these came to have different understandings. In particular, alchemy became more associated with a practice that was increasingly seen as fraudulent at the time, the transmutation of metals into gold, also known as chrysopoeia . The altering of these definitions ended up altering the history of chemistry. 163 As a result, some historians use the term “chymistry” to describe the study in the early modern period as opposed to differentiating between the two. 164

In the nineteenth century, alchemy took on an even stranger and somewhat esoteric character as it was redefined. It became associated with the “occult” and esoteric knowledge at the beginning of the century, aided in part by a revived interest in occultism and the “occult” sciences. An influential book was Mary Anne Atwood’s 1850

Suggestive Inquiry into the Hermetic Mystery , which argued alchemy was spiritual by nature, not something done in a laboratory. This spiritual understanding of alchemy, where the idea was to purify one’s self, influenced the ideas of Carl Jung, who in the twentieth century claimed alchemical texts were focused on the psyche of the alchemist,

161 Newman, “Introduction: Dibner Collection MS. 1031 B.” 162 Principe, The Scientific Revolution , 80. 163 Principe, “Reflections on Newton’s Alchemy,” 208. 164 Principe, The Scientific Revolution , 80; Principe, “Reflections on Newton’s Alchemy,” 208.

49 and not actual chemistry. Out of these views came another interpretation, that alchemy was somehow inferior to chemistry. Alchemists, as such, understood the world as

“living” and “organic,” as opposed to the more “mechanical” nature of chemistry. 165 By the mid-twentieth century, the true history of alchemy was very misunderstood, even by historians of science. Herbert Butterfield thought alchemy was coupled with “lunacy,” and George Sarton thought alchemists “fools and knaves.” 166 Caught up in this misinformation was Newton himself. As a result, early studies into his work with alchemy suffered from this more spiritual misunderstanding, particularly in the work by

Betty Dobbs. 167

In her second book on Newton’s work in chymistry, Dobbs thought Newton’s work, and ultimately thought, was unified. For her, the focal point was God. Whether

Newton was trying to understand prophecy, a problem in mathematics, or conducting an experiment, all of the work and pursuit was to ultimately get to the Truth, which was coherent and which ultimately came from God. Indeed, all of Newton’s pursuits “found their reconciliation in the infinite unity and majesty of the Deity.” 168 As for the alchemical part of Newton’s work, Dobbs claims Newton wanted to find a “vegetative principle” that alchemists thought was a hidden property in nature. This principle was used by God continuously for “generations, resurrections, fermentation, and vegetation.” 169 She also states that God used “the alchemical spirit” in order to form and give animation to matter in nature. 170 She links Newton’s studies in alchemy, the Bible,

165 Principe, “Reflections on Newton’s Alchemy,” 210-3. Quotes from 210, 211, 212. 166 Principe, “Reflections on Newton’s Alchemy,” 212-3. Quotes from 212. 167 Principe, “Reflections on Newton’s Alchemy,” 213-5. 168 Dobbs, 5-6. Quotation from 6. 169 Dobbs, 5. 170 Dobbs, 13.

50 and chronology to a larger issue, the prisca sapientia , or ancient, uncorrupted knowledge. 171 Her belief in Newton being an Arian helped lead her to the conclusion that all of Newton’s work should be looked at as having a religious unity, where the “Arian

Christ” assisted God by putting His will into action, and therefore kept Him in contact with His creation, nature and humankind alike. Furthermore, Dobbs even thought the

Arian Christ might have put the vegetable spirit into action, or that both were identical, for Newton 172

While Dobbs’s work was no doubt impressive, it will follow that Newton’s chymistry was not part of a unity of his overall work, nor was it strongly connected to religion. William Newman has doubts about Dobbs’s interpretation. He sees Newton’s work in chymistry as not as original as Dobbs makes it out to be. For him, Newton’s chymical work is more linked to the work of past alchemists than it is to the novel religious understanding Dobbs calls for. 173

In reality, alchemy was not essentially esoteric, and while it had a religious element at times, it was quite a practical pursuit. 174 Alchemy, although a subject that was seldom found in the universities of the day, was a discipline by which many sought to understand nature. While it included the well-known component of transmuting metal into gold, chymical studies were so much more. The discipline included understanding matter, and working with dyes, glass, and medicine. Indeed, it was a very practical pursuit. 175 One of the reasons alchemy gained such a connection to spirituality in the

171 Dobbs, 7; Principe, The Secrets of Alchemy , 181. 172 Dobbs, 83, 254. Quotation from 254. 173 Newman, “Review: The Janus Faces of Genius: The Role of Alchemy in Newton’s Thought ,” Isis 84, no. 3 (1993): 578-9. 174 It should be mentioned that some esoteric elements can be found in the alchemical tradition, such as in the works of Michael Maier. 175 Principe, The Scientific Revolution , 80, 84-5.

51 nineteenth- and twentieth-centuries was that alchemical texts, both from the Arab and

Christian contexts, saw alchemy as having a sacred character. This was not because of anything special about it, but that alchemical texts were produced in significantly religious cultures, whether the Islamic Arab World, or Christian Europe. Furthermore, invoking God and the sacred in alchemical texts were topoi , or commonplaces, in the writings. 176

One practical aspect worth noting was the quest to find gold through transmutation, which was quite reasonable given the theory behind it. Early modern alchemists/chymists worked with one stretching back to the Islamic middle ages, which held that metals were composed of two primary parts, “Mercury” and “Sulfur.” There terms did not always match up with the actual substances, and were sometimes used as an analogy. It is better to see these terms as representing complimentary groups, both of which were made up of substances that would make the groups react with one another. If combined in the correct proportion, gold could be made. The idea behind this was that in nature, it was thought possible that base metals could turn into noble ones. Evidence for this was taken from mines, where silver was found in lead ore, and gold in silver ore.

Therefore, it appeared reasonable that a chrysopoeian could produce this effect, and make gold in the process. Such an idea fueled the search for an agent that could bring this creation of gold more quickly. This agent was the Philosophers’ Stone. 177

Another element about alchemy that is worth noting is the secrecy involved with the subject. The reason for this is three-fold. First, alchemical secrets were similar to those trade secrets used by artisans. Second, a fear of debasing currency by

176 Principe, The Secrets of Alchemy , 192-4. 177 Principe, The Scientific Revolution , 80-1; Principe, The Secrets of Alchemy , 36-7, 109-10, 122. Quotations from 122.

52 transmutation led writers to discuss alchemy in a secretive way. Third, alchemical authors thought they had the privilege of possessing such knowledge, and that it could prove dangerous to those who did not properly understand such knowledge. 178

With this background, I want to now look at some of Newton’s papers which are deemed alchemical. I say deemed because, as Principe mentions, we may be wrong to label certain documents of Newton’s as alchemical. He thinks certain works may have had different purposes for Newton, including works of Philalethes and Hermes. 179 For instance, while Newton may have been looking to Philalethes for information relating to matter theory, he was probably not looking to Hermes for such information, thinks

Principe. The latter was probably used for his studies in “the prisca sapientia and ancient chronology.” 180 Instead, Principe suggests a “localized approach” needs to be taken to

Newton’s chymistry. As alchemy was not some monolithic area of study, it makes sense that it was not for Newton either. Therefore, when studying Newton’s chymical studies, they need to be seen more on a text by text basis, as opposed to some sort of unified alchemical project. 181

Looking at a selection of documents, we shall see that Newton’s chymistry was quite practical, not one obviously tied up with larger God-oriented goals. We shall see

God mentioned, but again, we will see that this usage of God is not some way to unify or

178 Principe, The Scientific Revolution , 81. 179 Principe, “Reflections on Newton’s Alchemy,” 217-8. 180 Principe, “Reflections on Newton’s Alchemy,” 218. While it is reasonable Newton would have looked to Hermetic documents for his studies on the ancients, Principe may be wrong to bring documents related to Hermes out of what scholars deem alchemical. In one document, Keynes MS 28, titled “Hermes,” we see Newton’s translation of the “Tabula Smaragdina,” which appears to be somewhat chymical in nature, and Newton’s “Commentarium” in the same document shows he was reading it with an eye towards chymistry. For this, see: Newton, “Hermes,” late 1680s to early 1690s, Keynes MS. 28, Chymistry of Isaac Newton , http://purl.dlib.indiana.edu/iudl/newton/ALCH00017 (accessed November 2, 2015); Newton, “Commentarium” to Keynes MS. 28, late 1680s to early 1690s, translated by Betty Jo Teeter Dobbs, in Dobbs, 276-7. 181 Principe, “Reflections on Newton’s Alchemy,” 218-9. Quotation from 218.

53 homogenize Newton’s work or thought. It is, once again, a usage as a result of context.

To understand nature through chymistry at this time was not divorced from any understanding of God and His being part of the natural order. Indeed, chymical discoveries could be, and were, considered gifts from God. 182 It was fine to bring God into the study of nature, and we will also see that for some authors, God was the ultimate goal of chymistry. For Newton, though, the goal appears to be more down to earth in the actual chymical work itself, even when he brought God into the mix.

B. Keynes MS. 33

One of Newton’s manuscripts that gives not only insight into what he was reading about alchemy, but also his own work in it, is the undated Keynes MS 33, titled “Manna.”

It consists of a transcription of an anonymous alchemical work, followed by Newton’s commentary on it, which includes another alchemical manuscript, the “The Mirrour of

Alchemy” by Robert Lane. 183

The first section, which the editors at the Chymistry database note is in a different handwriting than Newton’s, begins with high and esoteric language. The author self- describes as “an Actor of such mysteries of Nature, as the world is not worthy of.” He wants to write in such a way that only certain people can read it, and not “every fool &

Leud man,” for this would bring a curse upon the author of the text. To anyone who reads the text, the author warns the reader that he should have God as his main concern, for though “the Love of this art, which altho it be the only, nay al the wisdome of this world,” loving God and following the commandments are more important. A large

182 Principe, The Secrets of Alchemy , 192, 194-5. 183 Unknown, “Manna,” Keynes MS. 33, Chymistry of Isaac Newton . http://purl.dlib.indiana.edu/iudl/newton/ALCH00022 (accessed October 21, 2015). Newman notes this unknown authorship under the “Manuscript Information” tab found on this page.

54 purpose of this text, as the editors point out, is to show that making gold is not the point of alchemy. Indeed, much of it is tied up in the many different things the Philosophers’

Stone can do. 184

The author writes that the Stone’s uses include medicinal purposes;

“Multiplication,” which later on refers to multiplying the red and white versions of the

Philosophers’ Stone; making precious stones better than even nature itself, “to turn al the bodyes of the metals into running [mercury];” and “certain magical operations of several kinds which are past beleife till thou do see them: & which are indeed above al the rest.” 185

Of particular interest later in the manuscript is evidence that Newton performed chymical experiments related to the information in the anonymous alchemical text. In trying to create the red version of the Philosophers’ Stone, Newton, in reference to the anonymous text’s section relating to “Multiplication,” writes that the experimenter needs to “Take your white stone & dissolve him with your white [mercury] which you did reserve for this work.” After keeping this mixture of the two in a furnace for one month, the red stone will appear. Once this is done, the red stone should be dissolved with the

“red oyle” and left for another month, which produces “your medicine multiplied from 10 to 100.” 186

After this explanation, Newton gives a warning to the would-be practitioner of this experiment:

Thus you may do four times, but beware of the fift least you find nothing but a broaken glass which I my self found by wofull experience. This I do forewarn you of. If I had been so instructed I had never erred. Four times you may

184 “Keynes MS. 33,” and “Manuscript Information.” 185 Keynes MS. 33. 186 Keynes MS. 33.

55 multiply & no more, then this medicine will be fit for three works: the first for transmutation of metals, the second for magical operations, the third for Physic. 187

This warning is interesting for different reasons. First, we see that Newton indeed engaged in chymical experiments. This was not a passive hobby of reading and transcription for him, as his experimental notebook, “Idea of a table booke,” further attests. 188 Second, we see that Newton, in performing his experiments, actually got things wrong. He erred, and gives advice to the reader to not do as he did.

Third, the end goals for this “multiplication” are rather practical in nature. The

“medicine” can be used in transmutation, which as seen above in reference to the theory of Mercury and Sulfur, was in theory a reasonable thing chymists thought they could achieve. 189 It can also be used for “magical operations.” 190 Given the context of early modern chymistry and natural philosophy, this most certainly pertains to natural magic, which was significantly concerned with finding the hidden, or occult , aspects of nature. 191

Finally, it can be used for “Physic,” or medicinal purposes. 192 What is telling here is that these end goals are quite practical in nature, and not esoteric or spiritual. Newton, at least with this text, sees the use of the Philosophers’ Stone as something with practical purposes in the real world.

The only reference to God he remarks on in this section of the text, under the title

“Praxis Lapidis,” is the beginning of the chymical process, in which the practitioner

187 Keynes MS. 33. 188 Newton, “Idea of a table booke,” pre-1669-1693, Portsmouth Collection Add. MS. 3975, Chymistry of Isaac Newton , http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/newton/mss/norm/ALCH00110/query/field1=text&text1=MS%20Add.%2 03975 (accessed February 13, 2016). 189 Principe, The Scientific Revolution , 81; Keynes MS. 33. 190 Keynes MS. 33. 191 John Henry, “The Fragmentation of Renaissance Occultism and the Decline of Magic,” History of Science 46 (2008): 8-9. 192 Keynes MS. 33.

56 should “First take in the name of God of the best [Lead] or [Earth], & sift it clean from all roots stones or what els nature hath already begun to work upon.” 193 So, with much less pomp than the author of the anonymous text, Newton claims God should be mentioned when undertaking this chymical endeavor. Newton, though, focuses much less on the spiritual side of things than the other author, instead focusing his explanation much more on the actual process of the experiment.

After Newton’s commentary, there is another transcription of a manuscript, which is titled “The Mirrour of Alchemy,” by Robert Lang. In this text, there is an interesting paragraph about the goals of alchemy, which is very much religious and moral in nature:

This Philosophy is not of that kind which tendeth to vanity & deceipt but rather to profit & to edification inducing first the knowledg of God & secondly the way to find out true medicines in the creatures. Plato saith that Philosophy is the imitating of God so far forth as man is able. Yet we may know God more & more until we behold him face to face in the kingdom of heaven; so that the scope is to glorify God in his wonderful works, to teach a man how to live well, & to be charitably affected helping our neighbours. This Philosophy both speculative & active is not only to be found in the volume of nature but also in the sacred scriptures, as in Genesis, Job, Psalms, Isaiah & others. 194

Here, the author claims knowledge of God and “to find out true medicines in the creatures” are what can be found from alchemy. Overall, the “scope” of alchemy is to give glory to God, and to teach people how to live a good life, as well as how to act in charity towards others. 195 This is quite similar to the conclusion to the second edition of

Newton’s Opticks , in which he says that proper natural philosophy will lead to a better understanding of God, and also increasing “moral Philosophy.” 196 We also see an example of the important role for medicine in alchemy, as the author later writes:

193 Keynes MS. 33. 194 Keynes MS. 33. 195 Keynes MS. 33. 196 Newton, Opticks 2 nd ed., 381-2. Quotation from 381.

57 This Philosophy with the most rare & healthfull Physic linked to true grounds & upholden by dayly experience & very marrow of true medicine, & the quintescence of marrow it self, I here present unto your hands as a jewel of price to procure & preserve health… 197

Newton obviously thought enough of this document to include it in this overall manuscript. Since the text includes the benefits of alchemy with respect to a more religious and moral tone, and given his strong religious beliefs, it is reasonable Newton saw wisdom in the idea that alchemy was a means to give due reverence to God, and also a means to help others, whether through charity or in the development of medicines. This latter point is further strengthened by the first part of the manuscript, in which the anonymous author writes

Yet I deny not but the possession of [gold] and [silver] is a great blessing especially being gotten this way, because it frees a man from wants & being beholden unto others & for that a man may therby do good unto others, to the poor & oppressed, nay it is a happiness in this world to possess much, but yet I affirm it the least happiness, that comes by the Philosophers stone, if the full use thereof be known. 198

Newton was certainly aware of the religious and moral goals that alchemy/chymistry could offer. However, this document shows by his own chymical experiments that seeking out God or helping others do not necessarily appear to be his goals. What appears more clear is that he wanted to find out how to multiply the

Philosophers’ Stone. So, while the background and context Newton was working in was certainly religious in character, it does not appear to be his explicit goal with this work.

Therefore, it may not be fair to claim Newton had a unified religious goal in mind with his work. As Iliffe has remarked, we should not look to a common unity for all his work,

197 Keynes MS. 33. 198 Keynes MS. 33.

58 even if similarities between texts do exist. 199 For now, let us turn to another of Newton’s chymical experiments.

C. Cambridge, Portsmouth Add. MS. 3975

William Newman states this is a significant “laboratory notebook” of

Newton’s. 200 The dates in the notebook go from 1669 to 1693, with some sections possibly being older, including information related to optics. One thing the notebook shows are connections between Newton’s interests, in particular his chymistry and optics.

The editors at the Chymistry database have noted that this manuscript can be divided into six sections, with perhaps the fifth one being the most important here, which are notes

Newton made on his experiments. Included here are also notes made on the works of

George Starkey – also called Eirenaeus Philalethes – an American alchemist, and also

Robert Boyle. 201

To give an example of what one of Newton’s experiments from this notebook looks like, I refer to an example given by Newman in his introduction, in which Newton experiments with the “net” of Starkey/Philalethes, something which Newton was able to replicate. Newman describes it is “an alloy of copper and martial antimony regulus with a depression in the center and a fine crystalline surface resembling network.” 202 In the experiment, Newton writes the following:

On the net poudered I poured undistilled vinegre of [antimony]. It soaked almost all into it without extracting any considerable quantity of salt & the salt which it extracted (which was inconsiderably little) did not look blew, & consequently no extraction of the copper but more probably the spar in the Vinegre which upon distilling the Vinegre remains like a fixt salt in the bottom. Upon this

199 Iliffe, “Newton’s Religious Life and Work.” 200 Newman, “Introduction: Portsmouth Collection Add. MS. 3975,” Chymistry of Isaac Newton , http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/newton/mss/intro/ALCH00110 (accessed October 26, 2015). 201 Newman, “Introduction: Portsmouth Collection Add. MS. 3975.” 202 Newman, “Introduction: Portsmouth Collection Add. MS. 3975.”

59 impregnated net I poured further some distilled liquor of [antimony] so much as to make it moist like a soft lute & in a small heat it drank up also all that more quickly then the former. But if distilled liquor of [antimony] were first poured on the net, it would not touch it, no not in so great a heat as was sufficient almost to evaporate the liquor. Whence I understood the oak must be first prepared in a metallic form, & then the serpent undistilled fixed to it & if need be, more serpent either distilled or undistilled added. & then all melted together. What the effect of fusion may be I gather from these experiments. 203

He then goes on to explain more concerning this fusion. From this passage, Newton appears to give a detailed account of the experiment, including substances in the experiment, how he performed it, as well as results and what he learned from the experiment. Such is just one example of numerous experimental notes to be found in

Newton’s notebook. Indeed, just glancing through it shows how much of a practical and naturally-focused pursuit this was for Newton. It can easily be compared to a chemist’s notebook, because, indeed, that what this book is. 204 While practice was important for

Newton, he also had time to write on more theoretical concerns in the discipline.

D. “Of Natures obvious laws & processes in vegetation”

Newton’s unpublished chymical work “Of Natures obvious laws & processes in vegetation” is a good example of Newton’s chymical work that appears to have no overtly religious goal or tone, though there is mention of God. Newman has done a wonderful job at deciphering and interpreting it, showing something of Newton’s goal for the work, which is not religious. Newman tells us that Newton was looking for some type of “theory of everything” with this particular chymical text. This is explained by an aether theory where there are different degrees of the substance. This aether is able “to account for widely diverse phenomena, including organic life, the origin of heat and flame, the mechanical cause of gravitation, cohesion, the generation of metals and

203 Newton, Portsmouth Collection Add. MS. 3975. 204 Newton, Portsmouth Collection Add. MS. 3975.

60 minerals, and so forth.” 205 He also comments on a section in the document titled simply

“Of God.” Newman boils Newton’s discussion down to this: God’s power is only limited by logic; He can do anything imaginable that does not involve contradictions, and as a result, God had the capability of making earth different if He wanted to. 206

This section of the document is not so much about God as it is about reasons that can support the existence of God. A basic point he makes in the first paragraph is that something that is true either simply is or can be made so by a creator. The second paragraph, titled “Arg 2,” shows us some of Newton’s thoughts on the world and God.

He begins by stating that this world could have been different than it is because of the possibility that there are other worlds that may have a different form than this planet.

The earth being this way, Newton writes, was not a determined outcome, “but a voluntary

& free determination.” 207 Newton attributes this to God, and also writes that “such a voluntary…determination implys a God.” 208 Unless the reader misinterpret Newton, he clarifies he does not mean the earth might have been different “notwithstanding the precedent series of causes.” 209 Instead, he means other causes for planet earth might have happened because such other causes are possible in other places, in this context probably the other possible worlds Newton thinks might exist. 210 An important issue here is that

Newton may be trying to show the need for a creative agent. Furthermore, in the second paragraph, Newton states the world was not created in a predetermined manner. It was

205 Newman, “Introduction: Dibner Collection MS. 1031 B.” 206 Newman, “Introduction: Dibner Collection MS. 1031 B.” 207 Newton, Dibner MS. 1031 B. 208 Newton, Dibner MS. 1031 B. 209 Newton, Dibner MS. 1031 B. 210 Newton, Dibner MS. 1031 B.

61 freely created in a certain way, and this not only implies a creator God, but Newton writes that the cause must be God.

While Newton writes on God as a Creator in this text, his mention of Him only comprises two parts in a single section of a much larger text that deals with other chymical and natural matters (minerals, metals, air, and heat, just to name a few) and as

Newman argues, finding a “theory of everything.” 211 So, we see once again that for

Newton, God was certainly an aspect to be discussed when it came to natural philosophical matters. However, such a small mention of God in this text does not imply a strong unity between his religious beliefs and natural philosophical understandings. He had other goals in mind with this text, and while God may have been important enough to include in it, it was not the most important thing for Newton here.

E. Connections between Newton’s Optics and Chymistry

Newman and Alan Shapiro have looked at connections between Newton’s optics and his chymistry. Both show connections between these two areas of study, and it should be noted that Newman, while not showing a direct link exists between the two disciplines, does argue that a connection exists between Newton’s chymical studies and his work in optics, particularly along the lines of methodology and linguistics.212 With

Shapiro, we see a connection between Newton’s optics and chymistry through corpuscularianism. While the following will show that there was certainly an influence on optics from chymistry in Newton’s work, it does not show that there was a meshing of these two areas of study into an integrated whole. In other words, a strong and integrated unity did not exist between the two.

211 Newman, “Introduction: Dibner MS. 1031;” Newton, Dibner MS. 1031 B. 212 Newman, “Newton’s Early Optical Theory and its Debt to Chymistry,” 2-4.

62 Recently, Newman explored a connection between Newton’s chymistry and optics. Particularly, he sees a connection between Boyle’s chymical work and Newton:

“…no one up to now has argued in detail for a transfer from Boyle’s work on ‘chymical’ analysis and synthesis to the optical analyses and syntheses that formed the bases of

Newton’s early optical work.” 213 Newman sees the closeness between Boyle’s publishing works in the early 1660s that opposed “the Aristotelian theory of mixture” and

Newton’s own work on the heterogeneity of white light. 214 Furthermore, both of them used corpuscles in their explanations, Boyle’s pertaining to matter, and Newton’s to light, which Newton developed five years after Boyle first published the elements of his corpuscular matter theory. Newman adds, though, that the similarities could very well be coincidence. 215 Later, Newman mentions that Newton, writing about his first experiments on reforming white light from colored rays, includes numerous notes from

Boyle’s Origin of Forms , which looks at “redintegration,” explained below. 216 For

Newman, Newton could very well have adapted Boyle’s chymistry to his own work in optics. 217 While Newman certainly sees a connection between Newton’s optical work and chymical studies, he does not ever state it is explicit, instead seeing the evidence as strongly supporting such a claim. 218

One way Newman shows this is the similarity between the methodologies of the two men, whereby Newman limits himself to those times when Newton explicitly drew on Boyle. 219 In one instance, Newman looks to Boyle’s “redintegration,” (whereby a

213 Newman, “Newton’s Early Optical Theory and its Debt to Chymistry,” 2. 214 Newman, “Newton’s Early Optical Theory and its Debt to Chymistry,” 3. 215 Newman, “Newton’s Early Optical Theory and its Debt to Chymistry,” 3. 216 Newman, “Newton’s Early Optical Theory and its Debt to Chymsitry,” 30. 217 Newman, “Newton’s Early Optical Theory and its Debt to Chymistry,” 30. 218 Newman, “Newton’s Early Optical Theory and its Debt to Chymistry,” 9, 18, 29, 30, 33. 219 Newman, “Newton’s Early Optical Theory and its Debt to Chymistry,” 3.

63 composite substance is broken down into its various parts, and then recombined to construct the substance again) which he thinks Newton used to describe how sunlight broke apart and was brought together again. 220 This method of “redintegration” can be found in Boyle’s 1661 Certain Physiological Essays , in which he described how saltpeter is broken down into its different parts and then brought back together again into saltpeter. 221

Newman also sees a similarity between Newton and Boyle in the language they used. 222 In one instance, we see Newton replying to Huygens’s criticism of his theory on light and, according to Newman, he uses language that Boyle uses, particularly that of

“compounded” and “decompounded.” 223 By these, it appears Boyle meant that to compound something meant to mix particles together in an incoherent mixture, and by the latter term, he meant to recombine these compounded mixtures. 224 Newton states that

Huygens’s understanding of forming white light from blue and yellow can only happen if these two colors are compounds. And, as a result, white light is decompounded, within it

“all the spectral primaries.” 225 Newton further argues for his view on white light by comparing white light and colored rays to forming a gray powder by mixing together different colored powders. In describing this, he also uses Boyle’s language, says

Newman, by using his “compositional stages of mixture,” whereby “decompounded grey” can come from orange and blue, which were compounds. 226

220 Newman, “Newton’s Early Optical Theory and its Debt to Chymistry,” 29. 221 Newman, “Newton’s Early Optical Theory and its Debt to Chymistry,” 29. 222 Newman, “Newton’s Early Optical Theory and its Debt to Chymistry,” 30. 223 Newman, “Newton’s Early Optical Theory and its Debt to Chymistry,” 31-2. Quotations from 31 and 32. 224 Newman, “Newton’s Early Optical Theory and its Debt to Chymistry,” 5-6, 12, 31-2. 225 Newman, “Newton’s Early Optical Theory and its Debt to Chymistry,” 32. 226 Newman, “Newton’s Early Optical Theory and its Debt to Chymistry,” 32.

64 Another scholar, Alan Shapiro, has researched extensively into Newton’s optical works. In particular for this study, he has looked at connections that can be found among his optical work, and also his work in matter. 227 Perhaps the best way to get this idea across is by looking at the preface that did not make it into the Opticks , which Shapiro provides:

…so by this Principle we shall in ye following treatise give an acct of ye permanent colours of natural bodies, nothing further being requisite of ye production of those colours then that ye coloured bodies abound with pellucid particles of a certain size & density. This is to be understood of the largest particles or particles of ye last composition. For as bodies are composed of these larger particles with larger pores between them so it is to be conceived that these larger particles are composed of smaller particles with smaller pores between them. 228

To further back up his claim of the corpuscularity of light, he discussed, as an illustrative analogy, how vegetables soak up water, and also how light can pass through the pores of objects. 229

It will perhaps be clearer to see the connection by looking to Newton’s understanding of the hierarchy of matter. We first get an idea of this from the Latin edition of his Opticks , wherein he explains this theory. For Newton, matter was made up of “parts and pores” which equally take up a given volume of space, and the parts themselves are made up of smaller parts and pores that equally take up that smaller volume of space. Such an idea was not uncommon at the time, and Newton’s may have derived from Robert Boyle. 230 Looking at the quote from Newton, as well as the explanation of matter from Newton, it does certainly seem certain that his understanding of matter had some sort of influence upon his idea of the nature of color, as Shapiro

227 Alan E. Shapiro, “Newton’s optics and atomism,” in The Cambridge Companion to Newton , 245. 228 Shapiro, 249. 229 Shapiro, 249. 230 Shapiro, 248.

65 points out. 231 We must remember, though, that while Newton held onto the idea of the corpuscularity of matter, he later deemed his corpuscular understanding of light as an hypothesis, worthy of mention among the “Queries” in the Opticks ; Newton later anonymously claimed these “Queries” were added to the Opticks as hypotheses, and not natural phenomena that could be certified by experimentation. 232 It was, therefore, worthy as a way to better understand the subject at hand, but not one to make a “certain” scientific claim upon. 233 So, again, we see that among two disciplines Newton worked with – optics and matter – there was a connection, though not on a grand unified scale, nor is there some sort of religious connection between these disciplines, nor among

Newton’s optics and chymistry.

We see here that Newton’s chymical interests were indeed very practical and experimental in nature. He was not content with simply reading and copying other authors, though he certainly went to other authors for research and advice. His work in this area is not obviously mystical or strongly connected to religion.

F. Chymical Aims

A specific aim for Newton’s chymistry is hard to pin down, but there are some significant aspects to point to. 234 One notable aspect mentioned in the scholarship is

Newton was interested in the nature of matter. Karin Figala writes that for Newton, matter was hierarchical, a belief which he developed into a “composition theory of matter.” 235 According to her, the only text that has a clear explanation of this is from the

1717 edition of the Opticks , but it can also be gathered from the authors related to his

231 Shapiro, 247. 232 Shapiro, 249, 251. 233 Shapiro, 227-8. Quotation from 228. 234 Principe, “Reflections on Newton’s Alchemy,” 206, 216-7. 235 Karin Figala, “Newton’s Alchemy,” in The Cambridge Companion to Newton , 371.

66 chymistry, including Michael Maier, since this theory is not shown outright in Newton’s own chymical writings. 236 Some other sources which shed more light on his matter theory include correspondence to David Gregory in 1705 and Fatio de Duillier around ten years previous. 237 A passage from the Opticks , which Figala provides, shows how

Newton thought about matter:

we conceive these Particles of Bodies to be so disposed amongst themselves, that the Intervals or empty Spaces between them may be equal in magnitude to them all; and that these Particles may be composed of other Particles much smaller, which have as much empty Space between them as equals all the Magnitudes of these smaller Particles; And that in like manner these smaller Particles are again composed of others much smaller, all which together are equal to all the Pored or empty Spaces between them; and so on perpetually till you come to solid Particles, such as have no Pores or empty Spaces within them; 238

Put somewhat more simply, matter, at its lowest point, was “completely pure and homogenous.” 239 We should remember that matter was important to chymistry, for as

Principe remarks, those who were most interested in matter and how it transformed were the chymists, so it would make sense that Newton would read such authors to find out about matter. 240

A more specific example of this, and what one of Newton’s aims may have been, was the transmutation of metals. In a letter to John Locke in 1692, Newton thought the idea had no credence. Even so, he requested a recipe on transmutation, copied and read works with transmutation as the main goal, and even performed transmutation experiments. It may be, then, that Newton’s dismissing transmutation in the letter was

236 Figala, 371. 237 Figala, 372. 238 Newton, Opticks 2nd ed. , 243; Figala, 372. 239 Figala, 373. 240 Principe, “Reflections on Newton’s Alchemy,” 218.

67 simply fake, or he may have thought transmutation had a higher value. 241 Since Newton did have an active interest in transmutation, it would make sense for him to be interested in composition of matter. One way to understand this is that Newton, and others such as

Robert Boyle and George Starkey, thought it was possible for a solvent to be able to break down large structures of matter into basic particles, which could then be used to create something else, which is essentially the transmutation of metals.242

Newman lets us know that according to Humphrey Newton, a servant to Isaac

Newton, when the latter was performing “chymical experiments,” he turned at times to what appeared to be Agricola’s On Metals concerning the issue of transmutation, which was Newton’s “chief design.” Humphrey also remarked that Newton “aimed at something beyond the reach of human art and industry.” 243

It is unclear how chief an aim transmutation was for Newton, for in one of the letters Newman cites above, dating to 1727/8, Humprey writes the following:

About 6 weeks at Spring & 6 at the ffall the fire in the Elaboratory scarcely went out, which was well furnished with chymical Materials, as Bodyes, Receivers, ffends, Crucibles &c, which was made very little use of, the Crucibles excepted, in which he {fused} his Metals: He would sometimes, thô very seldom,) look into an old mouldy Book, which lay in his Elaboratory, I think it was titled, - Agricola de Metallis, The transmuting of Metals, being his Chief Design, for which Purpose Antimony was a great Ingredient. 244

241 Principe, “Reflections on Newton’s Alchemy,” 206-7. 242 Newman, “Why Did Isaac Newton Believe in Alchemy,” Perimeter Institute of Theoretical Physics , MP4, 18:00 ff, http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/videos/why-did-isaac-newton-believe-alchemy (accessed March 31, 2016); Principe, The Scientific Revolution , 81. 243 Newman, “Why Did Isaac Newton Believe in Alchemy,” 2:22-5:41. The letters he cites here are both from Humphrey Newton to John Conduitt, Keynes MS. 135, January 17, 1727/8, and February 17, 1727/8, Newton Project , http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00033 (accessed November 2, 2015). 244 Letter from Humphrey Newton to John Conduitt, Keynes MS. 135, February 17, 1727/8.

68 It could be that Humphrey was actually referring to Agricola in this context, or if he was referring to Newton, it may be he thought transmutation was the “chief design” of chymical work when it came to metals.

Iliffe has remarked on different aims for Newton in his chymical work, which include the transmutation of metals, vegetation, and understanding matter and the aether. 245 This last part in particular may have been of significant interest for Newton, for even though it appears that Newton decreased active chymical experimentation upon going to London in the late 1690s, he still studied chymistry, particularly “the basic alchemical insight that nature was full of a subtle but powerful activity.” 246 This may be a reference to the aether, which Newton thought was responsible for workings on earth. 247 Or, this could be a reference to that “materiall soule of all matter” that, coupled with the aether, appears to have led to activity on earth. 248

Another aim may have been that Newton was trying to look for some sort of unifying theory in nature. Newman states that with “Of natures obvious laws & processes in vegetation,” Newton set out to find some way to explain how nature operates in a singular way, which appears to be through an “imperceptible ethereal media.” 249

With this idea, which Newman states was not yet fully formed, Newton could explain various attributes of nature, among these how heat and fire are formed, what causes gravity in nature, how metals and minerals grow, “cohesion,” and “organic life.”250 One connection from this document may be found in the “General Scholium” of the Principia ,

245 Iliffe, Newton , 54-71. 246 Iliffe, Newton , 69. 247 Iliffe, Newton , 62-3. 248 Iliffe, Newton , 60-1. Quotation from 61. 249 Newman, “Introduction: Dibner MS. 1031 B.” 250 Newman, “Introduction: Dibner MS. 1031 B.”

69 where Newton writes of “a certain very subtle spirit” which lies in “gross bodies” and is responsible for attracting the particles inside bodies when they are close to one another. 251

If, then, Newton was trying to find a “theory of everything,” it certainly suggests he was trying to find some unified way of explaining the workings of nature. 252

However, as the documents show, there appears to still be a significant disciplinary distinction in Newton’s works, as he was focused on light and vision in the Opticks , gravity and forces in the Principia , and the nature of matter in his chymical work.

Furthermore, as we see chymistry connected to optics and also perhaps to the “spirit” in the Prinicpia , the connection to religion here is still quite small, with only brief mentions of God included.

G. Chymistry and Ancient Sources

Another connection found here is Newton’s use of ancient sources, including myth, in order to understand chymistry. This was not uncommon. By the early modern period, chrysopoeians saw chymical allegory in pretty much everything, including writings by Homer, Ovid, and even in the Bible. By the seventeenth century, writers of chymical histories pushed the antique legitimacy of chymistry all the way back to the time of the Hebrew Patriarchs, and even Adam. By doing this, they connected chymistry to the prisca sapientia , or “original wisdom” that God had given, and which had become corrupted under pagan myth. 253 Newton’s work with the prisca sapientia has been a significant part of the scholarship, and for good reason. Newton certainly saw himself in

251 Newton, Princpia , 943-4. Quotations from 943. 252 Newman, “Introduction: Dibner MS. 1031 B.” 253 Principe, The Secrets of Alchemy , 180-1. Quotation from 181.

70 this tradition, as did many others, as a restorer of the true knowledge to be found in natural philosophy, theology, math, and chymistry. 254

Figala mentions two sources where Newton was working with ancient sources with his chymistry: Keynes MSS. 29 and 32, which deal with the story of Osiris and Isis.

She sees Newton as pulling from Michael Maier’s use of the Egyptian couple in his

“Arbor genealogica metallorum.” According to Figala, Newton and Maier look to them as chymical symbols. The death of Osiris is symbolic of “death, putrefaction, and a return to primary matter,” while Isis’s collecting the remnants of his body represents “the renewed circle of life and death.” 255 The story of Isis and Osiris is also related to Maier’s

“pyramid of composition.” 256

Looking to Keynes MS. 29, we see other instances of how myth relates to chymistry for Newton. In one instance, he states, “The storys of Ganimede Mydas &

Danaus are chemicall.” 257 At least one of these seems obvious, as the story of King

Midas could be seen as a symbol for chymistry, as the mythical king was able to turn objects into gold by his very touch. Newton further writes, “Sphinx denotes this secret science, & his riddles were the Fables under which it was conceled.” 258 This “secret science” may very well be alchemy, given its association with secrecy. At another point,

“The Dragon kild by Cadmus is the subject of our work, & his teeth are the matter purified.” 259 It would appear, then, that Newton thought the story of Cadmus was related

254 Iliffe, “Newton’s Religious Life and Work.” Other scholars who have seen Newton’s use of ancient sources as important, especially concerning the prisca sapientia , are McGuire and Rattansi with “Newton and the ‘Pipes of Pan,’ ” and Dobbs with The Janus Faces of Genius . 255 Figala, 376-7. Quotations from 377. 256 Figala, 376-7. Quotation from 376. 257 Newton, Keynes MS. 29, Chymistry of Isaac Newton , http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/newton/mss/norm/ALCH00018 (accessed November 2, 2015). 258 Newton, Keynes MS. 29. 259 Newton, Keynes MS. 29.

71 to the study of matter, most certainly in the context of this manuscript in relation to chymistry. One final example may suffice: “Sacra Bacchi (vel Dionysiaca) instituted by

Orpheus were of a Chymicall meaning.” 260

Two examples show connections between chymistry and ancient history. In one,

“The Olympick Games are also chymicall & the Pythian from Python or Typho (ignis contra naturam) which Apollo ([gold]) killd (fixed) with his darts.” 261 Another example shows the following:

Democritus (a Graecian Adeptist) said there were certain birds (volatile substances) from whose blood mixt together a certain kind of Serpent ([Mercury]) was generated which being eaten (by digestion) would make a man understand the voyce of birds (the nature of volatiles how they may bee fixed). 262

In all of these passages, it is clear Newton saw classical myth and references as symbolic of chymical matters. This use of ancient sources may fit into a larger goal

Newton had, which was restoring natural philosophy and religion. This restoration is something of a bridge between at least two scholars who are divided on the unity of

Newton’s work. Iliffe, who is more skeptical of unification in Newton’s works, remarks that Newton saw himself as restoring both natural philosophy and religion. He came to this as a result of reading ancient sources, and in some cases, reading his own views into them. 263 Snobelen, who is more willing to accept strong integration between Newton’s theology and natural philosophy, claims that in reforming both religion and natural philosophy – among which was chymistry – ancient sources were a means to accomplish this by guiding Newton to the truth. 264 While Newton may have been interested in

260 Newton, Keynes MS. 29. 261 Newton, Keynes MS. 29. 262 Newton, Keynes MS. 29. 263 Iliffe, Newton , 96-7; Iliffe, “Newton’s Religious Life and Work.” 264 Snobelen, “‘The true frame of Nature,’” 234-5, 260.

72 restoring both religion and natural philosophy, this still does not mean we should look to his work as necessarily unified.

H. Conclusion

Whether Newton was in his chymical laboratory performing experiments, recording them, or transcribing chymical or alchemical texts, we should see he was involved in trying to understand the natural workings of the world. While the evidence seems clear that some connections existed between his chymical and optical work, and that he looked to ancient sources as chymical allegories, there was not necessarily a strong unity between his chymistry and other natural philosophical work, nor was there necessarily a strong religious unity to his chymistry. When Newton was working on chymistry, he was trying to understand how matter worked, whether trying to understand the aether, or trying to create the Philosophers’ Stone. God was largely not on his mind when it came to chymistry, though Newton certainly did bring him in, as is to be expected given the frequently-religious nature of the discipline, even though it was more practical for Newton’s purposes.

73

CHAPTER IV

GOD’S ACTIVITY IN NATURE

“…and to treat of God from phenomena is certainly a part of natural philosophy.” – The “General Scholium” to the Principia

So far, we have looked into Newton’s studies in religion and chymistry. We have seen that Newton, when dealing with religion, largely kept to religion. Looking at his chymical work, we see that he largely dealt with chymistry as a practical pursuit. While

Newton included God in his chymical manuscripts, it was not in such a way as to make

God the main goal of his work, nor portray Him as some sort of large unifier between his work in the two disciplines. Furthermore, while there were connections between his optical work and his chymistry, and also perhaps in the “General Scholium” to the

Prinicpia , there still does not seem to be some large or significant unity to his work, even though these smaller connections indeed exist. Going forward, I want to look at some texts where God plays a more substantial role in his natural philosophical works. These texts will show that God indeed plays an important role in Newton’s overall natural philosophy. We will see God connected in a more abstract way to his work, and also more intimately connected to particular areas.265 While this is the case, where other

265 Snobelen holds a similar view concerning Newton’s involvement in the prisca tradition, drawing on McGuire, who he points out sees both a “weak” and “strong relationship” between the Newton’s use of the

74 scholars have looked to such texts and have seen Newton as engaged in a homogenous work, I still see his work as having significant disconnections between disciplines.

Three texts show this connection with God quite well, ones that have been noted in the scholarship. First shall be “De Gravitatione,” an undated text which deals in particular with Newton’s ideas on metaphysics, and partly is a reaction to Cartesian philosophy. 266 Second, we will turn to what is perhaps the most significant text concerning Newton’s thoughts about God in nature. In the “General Scholium,” a concluding addendum he added to the second (1713) and third (1726) editions of the

Principia , we see some very specific ideas about who God is for Newton. 267 With these, we will see that while God was a significant trend to be found in Newton’s works, this trend does not suggest a strong unity with his natural philosophy. God was certainly important enough for Newton to discuss him in these different texts, with their different areas of study, but it does not necessarily show that he had a monolithic goal in mind, or a unified project. Third, I will turn to Newton’s Opticks , particularly the series of

“Queries” found at the end of Book III in the second edition, published in 1718. Here, we get a sense of Newton’s ideas about the role God plays in natural philosophy. Finally,

I will close on a note of why Newton may have included God in his works, namely, as a counter to Cartesianism and atheism. 268

prisca concerning the “context” and “content” of his works, respectively. Snobelen, “‘The true frame of Nature,’” 259-60. 266 A recent scholar who has written on the content of this text is Janiak, who remarks in note 11 how different scholars have given different dates to when Newton wrote this text. Janiak, “Newton’s Philosophy.” The note can be found here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton- philosophy/notes.html#11 (accessed February 18, 2016). 267 Dating of these editions can be found with George Smith, “Newton’s Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica ,” 2007, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton- principia/#ThrEdiPri (accessed February 18, 2016). 268 Grant, 289; Cunningham, 384; Snobelen, “‘The true frame of Nature,’” 250; Janiak, “Newton’s Philosophy.”

75 A. “De Gravitatione et Aequipondio Fluidorum”

To begin, the unpublished “De Gravitatione” is something of a response to the natural philosophy and metaphysics of Cartesianism. Since the document was not finished, it is hard to gauge how final and developed these thoughts were for Newton.

Still, they offer important insight into Newton’s views on time and space, and especially metaphysics. 269 In particular with space, there is a distinct connection between it and

God. 270

Andrew Janiak writes that, for Newton, space was a significant part of natural philosophy. His ideas stood in contrast to those of Descartes. In Cartesian philosophy, space, or extension, was equated with matter. They were one and the same. Newton disagreed, stating space was separate from matter, bodies, or entities. Included in this were things that did not have a material grounding, such as the mind and God. They, too, have “spatial location” like material objects. 271 Indeed, Newton writes,

Space is being to the extent of being a relation. No being would exist or can exist that is not in some manner attributed to space. God is everywhere, created minds are somewhere and body in the space that it fills; and whatever is neither everywhere nor somewhere, that is not. 272

Janiak mentions that space was important in this context because it is not connected to material bodies. It is its own category. Furthermore, all entities are connected to it. As a result, under a Cartesian understanding, entities like the mind and

269 Howard Stein, “Newton’s metaphysics,” in The Cambridge Companion to Newton , 263. 270 Janiak, “Newton’s Philosophy.” 271 Janiak, “Newton’s Philosophy.” 272 Newton, “ De Gravitatione et Aequipondio Fluidorum ,” c. 1664-1685, trans. W.B. Allen, Dr. William B. Allen , http://www.williambarclayallen.com/translations/De_Gravitatione_et_Aequipondio_Fluidorum_translation. pdf (accessed August 29, 2015), 10; Janiak also quotes this passage in “Newton’s Philosophy.” For Janiak’s comment on the disputed dating, see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton- philosophy/notes.html#11 (accessed February 18, 2016).

76 God would not exist, for they would have “no spatial location.” 273 What is so important here is that God has a distinct place in the cosmos. He is present through the entirety of space and time. 274

Newton is quick to bring up a point: because God is present in the entirety of space, He ought not to be seen like some other material body that can take up space and be divided. For, while God is present everywhere, He does not have any parts, like space does. He appears to be likened to “durations” of time, which while they are portions, are not something that can be physically split up. 275 Stein also mentions that while claiming

“God is everywhere present in space ” was potentially problematic, Newton did not, as the concept of God’s omnipresence was a strong idea found in the Christian tradition. 276

In this instance, we see Newton bringing in God to a particular part of natural philosophical reasoning, the nature of space. Here, Newton not only places God alongside the philosophical musings of space or extension, but he even describes something about the nature of God Himself, namely His presence in the universe. We will further see this importance of God’s presence in the “General Scholium.” While this is certainly a significant combination of natural philosophy and the nature of God, this does not amount to a strong integrated unity between Newton’s natural philosophy and his religious or theological beliefs. This is because simply bringing God into discussion about space does not amount to enmeshing these areas of understanding. It just shows that it is important to bring God into natural philosophical discussion. This was especially the case in the “General Scholium.”

273 Janiak, “Newton’s Philosophy.” 274 Janiak, “Newton’s Philosophy.” 275 Stein, 270-1. Quotation from 271; Newton, De Gravitatione , 10. 276 Stein, 270.

77 B. The “General Scholium” to the Principia

The “General Scholium” is most certainly Newton’s most well-known published document pertaining to religion. With it, we see that Newton thought God was an appropriate subject in the realm of natural philosophy. However, by considering the

Principia as a whole, we see that Newton’s primary concern was not in the religious realm, but the natural one. As a result, we get an idea of how important God was for

Newton when it came to studying nature. Indeed, God was significant enough to include in discussion, but He was not the overall focus. Grant reminds us the subject Newton was dealing with in the Principia was “mathematical physics.” 277 While I am not the first to break down the meaning of this text – indeed, Snobelen has provided a thorough analysis – I want to look at it myself and see what it can tell us, especially in light of the debate in the historiography between more localist views, such as with Iliffe, and more unificationist views, such as with Force and Dobbs. 278

One place to begin is with an attribute Newton gives to God. This pertains to His

“dominion.” 279 This is perhaps most importantly seen with a title Newton uses. His God is the Pantokrator , a “universal ruler” over servants. 280 Concerning God’s dominion,

Newton writes:

The lordship of a spiritual being constitutes a god, a true lordship constitutes a true god, a supreme lordship a supreme god, and imaginary lordship an imaginary god. And from true lordship it follows that the true God is living, intelligent, and powerful; from the other perfections, that he is supreme, or supremely perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient, that is, he endures from

277 Grant, 292. 278 Snobelen gives a comprehensive breakdown of the General Scholium in “‘The true frame of Nature,’” 252-7. 279 Newton, Principia , 940; Snobelen, “‘The true frame of Nature,’” 253-4. 280 Newton, Principia , 940, and note d.; Snobelen, “‘The true fame of Nature,’” 253-4.

78 eternity to eternity, and he is present from infinity to infinity; he rules all things, and he knows all things that happen or can happen. 281

Furthermore, “a god without dominion, providence, and final causes is nothing other than fate and nature.” 282

What does this focus on dominion say about Newton’s view of God in the natural order? Snobelen mentions this God of dominion gains His sovereignty from the fact that his creations are contingent on Him, and also that “absolute space and time are predicates of God’s infinite extension and eternal duration.” 283 So, Snobelen explains there is a God which causes time and space, and also a creation that by necessity needs God. It also stands to reason that a God who, as Newton writes, “rules all things, and [Who] knows all things that happen or can happen” would be intimately involved in the natural order. 284

God’s dominion was also on Newton’s mind when he wrote about order in the cosmos. Again, Snobelen should be mentioned here, for he has shown that the order of the cosmos, with the planets, stars, and comets, is kept in order by God’s dominion in the

General Scholium; He is needed for a well-regulated cosmos. 285 Newton looks to the motion of comets as evidence of this order, for they, unlike the more “regular motions” of the orbits of the planets and moons, travel in “eccentric orbits.” 286 These motions, both the more orderly planets and less orderly comets, must come from “the design and

281 Newton, Principia , 941. In the Andrew Motte translation from the 1729 printing of the Principia , it would appear that his use of “dominion” in the section corresponding to the above block quote, Cohen and Whitman have chosen to use the term “lordship.” For this comparison, see “Andrew Motte’s translation of the General Scholium to Isaac Newton’s Principia (1729),” 390, The Isaac Newton Project Canada , https://newtonprojectca.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/newton-general-scholium-1729-english-text-by- motte-letter-size.pdf (accessed February 25, 2016). 282 Newton, Principia , 942. 283 Snobelen, “‘The true frame of Nature,’” 254. 284 Newton, Principia , 941. 285 Snobelen, “‘The true frame of Nature,’” 253. 286 Newton, Principia , 940.

79 dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.” 287 Also, Newton reasons that stars, if they are in solar systems like ours, must have been created by God, and therefore dominion must be over these stars as well. 288 Especially important concerning gravity, the distance between these supposed systems must have been arranged just so to keep each other’s gravitational system from interacting, or rather interfering, with one another. 289

Yet, even if God is present in nature, as Newton clearly shows, does that mean He ought to be a part of the study of nature? Yes, to an extent. Newton mentions we cannot truly grasp God’s understanding or perception, likening such knowledge to a blind person having an understanding of colors. 290 The only way a person can know about God through nature is “by his properties and attributes and by the wisest and best construction of things and their final causes.” 291 However, Newton assures the reader God ought to be considered when working with natural philosophy: “…to treat of God from phenomena is certainly a part of natural philosophy.” 292

So, to what extent is God important for Newton in the General Scholium?

Snobelen writes He is the “focal point” of Newton’s natural philosophy in this finale to the second, 1713, edition of the Principia .293 Clearly, this text shows Newton thought

God was an allowable and essential part of natural philosophy. This does not mean God was the goal of the entire Principia . Of course, it is certainly true that showing belief in

God was a goal of the text, as seen in the well-known letter from Newton to his friend

287 Newton, Principia , 940. 288 Newton, Principia , 940. 289 Newton, Principia , 940. 290 Newton, Principia , 942. 291 Newton, Principia , 942. 292 Newton, Principia , 943; Snobelen, “‘The true frame of Nature,’” 255. 293 Snobelen, “‘The true frame of Nature,’” 257.

80 Robert Bentley. 294 That God is an active “Agent” in this letter to Bentley is certainly important, and appears to be the central theme. 295 Certainly just as important are all of the details relating to motion; the sun, moon, planets, and comets; and also gravity and vortices. 296 Furthermore, looking to the Preface of the Principia , Newton does not mention proving God as the goal of his work. Instead,

our present work sets forth mathematical principles of natural philosophy. For the basic problem of philosophy seems to be to discover the forces of nature from the phenomena of motions and then to demonstrate the other phenomena from these forces. It is to these ends that the general propositions in books 1 and 2 are directed, while in book 3 our explanation of the system of the world illustrates these propositions. For in book 3, by means of propositions demonstrated mathematically in books 1 and 2, we derive from celestial phenomena the gravitational forces by which bodies tend toward the sun and toward individual planets. 297

Newton could very well have changed his preface to include something about God, but he did not. The goals of the Principia , in Newton’s own words, are to find forces from motion, and to show other “phenomena” from these forces, and particularly in this book, those forces of gravity. God may very well be an essential part of the cosmos for

Newton, and to close his great work with substantial discussion on God’s role in nature is no passing note. Indeed, Snobelen writes his line about God’s role in natural philosophy is a “positive declaration,” no doubt as to the connections between Newton’s theological and natural philosophical beliefs. 298 While God is certainly significant here, He is not the focus of the Principia .

294 Snobelen, “‘The true frame of Nature,’” 246. 295 Isaac Newton to Richard Bentley, December 10, 1692, Newton Project , http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00254 (accessed October 1, 2015). 296 Letter from Isaac Newton to Richard Bentley, December 10, 1692. 297 Newton, Principia , 382. 298 Snobelen, “‘The true frame of Nature,’” 255.

81 As seen in the General Scholium, God is present in nature, especially with His dominion in the cosmos. The “Lord God Pantokrator ” cannot be divorced from a proper understanding of nature for Newton. 299 What appears from this document, however, is not an integrated unity between his theology and natural philosophy, such as Force has argued for. Instead, it shows that for Newton, God was not simply allowed in natural philosophical discussion, but He was also an integral presence in the cosmos, as He not only created it, but also gave it order. While this inclusion of God is certainly compelling and significant, both for Newton’s understanding of God and his thoughts on the Deity’s inclusion in natural philosophical discussion, one should be cautious before claiming this brief mention of God constitutes a coherent unity between Newton’s theology and natural philosophy. 300

C. The “Queries” to the Opticks

The final section worth exploring is found at the end of Newton’s Opticks , specifically the second edition. These are the “Queries,” which Newton placed at the end of his work. He placed these at the end of his book after being “interrupted” in his studies on light, leaving the queries to be researched and worked on by others. 301

Including among these Queries are some musings on God and His role in nature. Newton saw God as both creating and ordering nature, and also sees Him as a goal of natural philosophy. 302 Still, God does not appear to be the goal of his work here, with Newton instead focusing on the nature of light. Furthermore, it does not appear that there is a strong unity between his religious and natural philosophical work. Newton indeed

299 Newton, Principia , 940-3. Quotation from 940. 300 Grant, 289. 301 Newton, Opticks 2 nd ed. , 313. 302 For these notions relating to God, see Queries 28 and 31 in Newton, Opticks 2 nd ed ., particularly 344-5 and 375-82.

82 includes God in discussion here, but his focus in the Opticks concerns the nature of light:

“My Design in this Book is not to explain the Properties of Light by Hypotheses, but to propose and prove them by Reason and Experiments.” 303 Furthermore, most of the

Opticks does not appear to mention God or any religious or theological ideas until near the very end. 304 Two of the Queries that directly pertain to God and nature are Query 28 and Query 31.

Query 28 opens up with Newton criticizing the idea that light spreads through a

“fluid Medium,” which Newton claims is a hypothesis. According to it, light would

“consist in Pression or Motion,” which Newton notes was attempted in experiment by

Huygens, an experiment that that was ultimately not successful. 305 He goes on to write on other issues related to this initial claim about light, particularly the issue of fluids, which then relate to broader natural philosophical issues:

A dense Fluid can be of no use for explaining the Phænomena of Nature, the Motions of the Planets and Comets being better explain’d without it. It serves only to disturb and retard the Motions of those great Bodies, and make the frame of Nature languish: And the Pores of Bodies, it serves only to stop the vibrating Motions of there Parts, wherein there Heat and Activity consists. And if it be rejected, the Hypotheses that Light consists in Pression or Motion propagated through such a Medium, are rejected with it. 306

After the rejection of this “Fluid” in his optics for different natural philosophical reasons, such as hindering the motion of planets and the interior parts of bodies, Newton goes on to write about the authority of ancient philosophers and criticizes “Later

Philosophers” for not taking into consideration there was some other cause for gravity

303 Newton, Opticks 2 nd ed ., 1; Westfall, Never at Rest , 642. 304 Doing a word search in the Opticks 2 nd ed. does not bring up any mention of “God” until page 375 of the final volume, Book III, where there is also description of God as “an intelligent Agent” on 378, as well as the “first Cause” on 344 and 381. It would appear, then, that much of the content of his work does not pertain to discussion of God or matters religious or theological. 305 Newton, Opticks 2 nd ed. , 336-8. 306 Newton, Opticks 2 nd ed. , 338-43. Block quotation from 343.

83 “than dense Matter.” 307 He then goes on to make large claims about the nature of earth and the cosmos, particularly relating to “a Being incorporeal, living, intelligent, omnipresent.” 308 Related to this passage, Snobelen writes how Newton’s belief in a non- mechanical “first Cause” both criticizes the mechanical philosophy and shows that nature ultimately depends on God. 309

Concerning religion and natural philosophy, Newton connects God to the overall understanding of nature, but not specifically to the issue of optics. Only at one point in the query does he connect the two, when he writes, among God’s other designs, “Was the

Eye contrived without Skill.” 310 Newton does conclude the “Being” is responsible for other parts of the natural order, including “all that Order and Beauty which we see in the

World,” the motion and order of planets and comets, and “the Bodies of Animals to be contrived with so much Art.” 311 All of this pointing towards God provides natural philosophy with much value, for “tho’ every true Step made in this Philosophy brings us not immediately to the Knowledge of the first Cause, yet it brings us nearer to it.” 312

Clearly, Newton connected natural philosophy to knowing more about God.

However, this still does not mean his religion and natural philosophy were united. It shows that Newton thought the natural order could give knowledge of God, but this is not a declaration of a unity of work and thought in the areas of religion and natural

307 Newton, Opticks 2 nd ed. , 343-4. Quotation from 344; Snobelen, “‘The true frame of Nature,’” 249-50. 308 Newton, Opticks 2 nd ed. , 344-5. Quotation from 345. 309 Snobelen, “‘The true frame of Nature,’” 250. 310 Newton, Opticks 2 nd ed. , 344. 311 Newton, Opticks 2 nd ed. , 344-5. Quotations from 344 and 345; Snobelen, “‘The true frame of Nature,’” 248-50. 312 Newton, Opticks 2 nd ed. , 345.

84 philosophy. 313 Furthermore, we see that in this query, Newton was also very much interested in natural philosophical matters, and only briefly in religious ones.

Another query where there are connections to God is Query 31 of the second edition of the Opticks . Here, God appears as a creator forming the particles which compose bodies:

…it seems probable to me, that God in the Beginning form’d Matter in solid, massy, hard impenetrable, moveable Particles, of such Sizes and Figures, and with such other Properties, and in such Proportion to Space, as most conduced to the End for which he form’d them.314

These beginning particles are so hard that they cannot be broken apart, for if they did, nature itself would not be the same. Instead, the compositions of the particles change. 315

God in this instance is being placed into something direct in natural philosophy, specifically at the beginning creating elementary particles.

Further along, we get a glimpse of a God who is active and present in the universe, but is not directly a part of it. 316 It is a quite sophisticated look into Newton’s view of God’s role in the natural order. One thing to notice is that Newton’s God is one of order. 317 He, being the Creator, set the universe in order. It did not just appear out of chaotic nature, but instead, “though being once form’d, it may continue by those Laws

[of Nature] for many Ages.” 318 So, God not only creates, but it also appears He sets natural law in action. An example he provides includes the planets, which except for some disorder caused by the action of planets and comets towards each other, is very orderly. At one point, Newton writes, “Such a wonderful Uniformity in the Planetary

313 Snobelen, “‘The true frame of Nature,’” 261. 314 Newton, Opticks 2 nd ed. , 375-6. 315 Newton, Opticks 2 nd ed. , 376. 316 Newton, Opticks 2 nd ed. , 377-80. 317 Snobelen, “‘The true frame of Nature,’” 234. 318 Newton, Opticks 2 nd ed. , 377-8. Quotation from 378.

85 System must be allowed the Effect of Choice.” 319 This description is very similar to the

“General Scholium,” where Newton writes of God creating and actively keeping the cosmos in order. 320 He then goes on to describe the design by which animals are composed, which he shows is very orderly. 321 Newton also notes that God is omnipotent, being everywhere. 322 God’s power in nature is so powerful that Newton also supposes

He has the power to change nature if He wills, “thereby to vary the Laws of Nature, and make Worlds of several sorts in several Parts of the Universe.” 323

Nearing the end of the query, Newton lays out the goals of his work. For the first two books, Newton set out, using his method of analyzing through experimentation and induction,

to discover and prove the original Differences of the Rays of Light in respect of Refrangibility, Reflexibility, and Colour, and their alternate Fits of easy Reflexion and easy Transmission, and the Properties of Bodies, both opake and pellucid, on which their Reflexions and Colours depend. 324

He goes on to write, “And these Discoveries being proved, may be assumed in the

Method of Composition for explaining the Phænomena arising from them: An Instance of which Method I gave in the End of the first Book.” 325 As far as he is concerned with

Book Three, there is still work to be done. He states his work on continuing analyzing light in this book is just started, and that while he has provided “hints” about what it can do in nature, this further knowledge must be found through experiments and observations by those curious who want to take up the work. 326

319 Newton, Opticks 2 nd ed. , 378. 320 Newton, Principia , 939-40. 321 Newton, Opticks 2 nd ed. , 378-9. 322 Newton, Opticks 2 nd ed. , 379. 323 Newton, Opticks 2 nd ed. , 379-80. 324 Newton, Opticks 2 nd ed. , 380-1. Quotation from 381. 325 Newton, Opticks 2 nd ed. , 381. 326 Newton, Opticks 2 nd ed. , 381.

86 After this, Newton starts to get away from the study of nature proper, it seems, and starts to write on God and morality. 327 It is worth quoting in full:

And if natural Philosophy in all its Parts, by pursuing this Method, shall at length be perfected, the Bounds of moral Philosophy will be also enlarged. For so far as we can know by natural Philosophy what is the first Cause, what Power he has over us, and what Benefits we receive from him, so far our Duty towards him, as well as that towards one another, will appear to us by the Light of Nature. And no doubt, if the Worship of false Gods had not blinded the Heathen, their moral Philosophy would have gone farther than to the four Cardinal Virtues; and instead of teaching the Transmigration of Souls, and to worship the Sun and Moon, and dead Heroes, they would have taught us to worship our true Author and Benefactor. 328

By making natural philosophy better by using this method, it will therefore lead to an enlargement of moral philosophy. This expansion of moral philosophy appears wrapped up in “the first Cause,” no doubt God, for right after this we see Newton use

“he,” which certainly corresponds to this “Cause.” Through natural philosophy, one can understand this cause, His powers and what He can do for people, and greater morality will also be a result. He then gives criticism of “Heathen” morality, which consists of not worshipping God and believing in the soul’s transmigration. 329

What can these queries tell us about the relationship of religion to Newton’s natural philosophy? As Newton mentioned in the “General Scholium,” it was perfectly fine to bring God into natural philosophy. Here, Newton clearly had no problem discussing God as the creator of nature. Furthermore, we also see that, with the last part of Query 31, a proper natural philosophy could lead to knowing about God, and also would strengthen morality. So, connections were indeed present for Newton between

God and the study of nature, and, it would also appear, a proper morality. Still, though,

327 McGuire and Rattansi, 122-3. 328 Newton, Opticks 2 nd ed. , 381-2; McGuire and Rattansi, 122-3. 329 Much of my description of this matches up with McGuire and Rattansi’s description in the “Pipes of Pan” article. Therefore, I think it is correct to cite them. McGuire and Rattansi, 122-3.

87 while these connections exist, they do not show a strong unity between Newton’s religion and his natural philosophy. Newton also showed that his focus was on natural matters, both in explaining his goals for the different books of his Opticks , and also in the content of the Queries themselves, which do not mention much on God. 330

D. Newton as Reactionary: God as a Means Against the Cartesian Philosophy and Atheism

Reading through both primary and secondary sources shows that Newton did not agree with the Cartesian philosophy, and this was a significant reason why he wrote about God in his work. For Cunningham, Newton mentioned God as a defense mechanism against perceived atheism in the discipline. 331 According to his friend John

Craig, Newton showed what was wrong with Descartes’s philosophy “because he thought it was made on purpose to be the foundation of infidelity.” 332

Going back to “De Gravitatione,” Stein notes that concerning the metaphysical portion of the document, Newton’s goals lie in arguing against Descartes’s theory of space and motion seen in his Principles of Philosophy , and also in giving his own ideas about space, time, and body. 333 One problem Newton had with Descartes’s philosophy was that it could help strengthen atheism. He writes,

If we say with Descartes (that) extension is body, do we not rather manifestly spread the way to atheism, for then that extension is not being created but was from eternity, whereupon we have an absolute idea of it without any relation to God, and thus we are able to conceive existence for the time being as if at that time we would suppose God not to be. 334

330 Newton, Opticks 2nd ed. , 313-82, particularly 380-1 concerning the goals for the work. 331 Cunningham, 383-5. 332 Cunningham, 383. 333 Stein, 264. 334 Newton, “ De Gravitatione ,” 14.

88 Indeed, Cartesian mechanical philosophy gives matter properties that are, for Newton,

God’s. 335 Snobelen also notes Newton thinks Cartesianism can lead to atheism, and that this document is perhaps the one that most strongly shows connections between

Newton’s natural philosophy and his “theistic understanding of the world.” 336 Looking to a draft version of Query 31, Snobelen also remarks that Newton argued against

Descartes’s hypothetical method because it could suppose God did not exist, thereby leading the way to possible atheism, as well as taking up a position that God was simply

Nature, echoing the belief of Baruch Spinoza. 337

Another possible argument against Descartes comes in the General Scholium, particularly concerning the role of space and time. Snobelen reminds us that for Newton, space and time come from God. As a result, Newton hints that God’s omnipresence can be seen as a way to explain universal gravitation, and also as a way to argue against

Descartes’s mechanical aether. 338 Another attack may come when Newton writes that mechanics are insufficient to explain the motion of comets: “And all these regular motions do not have their origin in mechanical causes, since comets go freely in very eccentric orbits and into all parts of the heavens.” 339 Instead, “the design and dominion” of God are needed to account for these comets, and the whole system of the cosmos. 340

There is also evidence that Newton included the “General Scholium” in later editions of the Principia to counter claims by Leibniz, who thought its content was “atheistical.” 341

335 A. Rupert Hall and Marie Boas Hall, Unpublished Scientific Papers of Isaac Newton: A Selection from the Portsmouth Collection in the University Library, Cambridge (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1978), 81. 336 Snobelen, “‘The true frame of Nature,’”235-6. Quotation from 236. 337 Snobelen, “‘The true frame of Nature,’” 250-1. 338 Snobelen, “‘The true frame of Nature,’” 254. 339 Newton, Principia , 940. 340 Newton, Principia , 940. 341 Cunningham, 384.

89 This focus on a defense or reaction against the Cartesian philosophy certainly shows that Newton was willing to include God in natural philosophical discussion, and that Newton thought God was needed for natural philosophical discussion. While he certainly thought God needed to be brought in, such a needed inclusion of Him does not constitute an integrated unity between Newton’s natural philosophy and his religion or theology. It also does not show outright that natural philosophy, to use Cunningham’s words, “was centrally about God and God’s universe.” 342 It was imperative that Newton show God’s activity and place in nature, and to counter atheism, whether when he leveled it against Descartes, or when it was leveled against him. It does not follow from this, though, that he wanted to have a “seamless unity” between distinct areas of natural or religious/theological study.

E. Conclusion

Newton’s natural philosophical works contain several references to God, thereby showing he was willing to connect his study of nature to something that was not directly a part of nature. However, as I hope I have shown, this inclusion of God in some of his natural philosophical works, whether discussing the physics of the cosmos, the nature of space, or light and optics, does not mean Newton was trying to unify his work and thought into one monolithic whole. While Newton’s strong religious convictions certainly would have influenced his inclusion of God in his writings on nature, we also see that there was another motive in mind, that being the argument against Descartes’s philosophy, as well as atheism. Even though Newton brought in God several times in his

342 Cunningham, 383. Grant is also applicable here with his mention of how little Newton brings up God in his natural philosophy, including the Principia . Grant, 289.

90 work, it does not mean he thought all of his musings and works were all about God, or were in a coherent whole.

91

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION

The legacy of Isaac Newton has left the image of a quintessential man of reason, a genius in the sciences, as well as a man who was interested in many subjects that under the realm of “modernity” might seem odd: searching for the Philosophers’ Stone, arguing strongly against the abomination, as he saw it, of the doctrine of the Trinity, trying to interpret prophecy, and placing God within his natural philosophical works. Scholars have meticulously researched and argued for around seven decades about what these different areas meant for Newton, and what their relationship was. In trying to better understand his thoughts, particularly as seen in his writings, Newton has given the historian a real challenge when it comes to understanding what, if any, connections existed among his works.

The position I have tried to look for in this study is something of a via media between the strong unificationist approach that Dobbs and Force argue for, as well as the stronger calls for disconnection between Newton’s theology, chymistry, and his more

“scientific” pursuits as Cohen has called for. In trying to find some balance, I have argued, and shown, that while Newton’s studies are largely separated, particularly between his theology and natural philosophy, smaller connections do exist, and show that

92 when Newton did have connections in mind, they were largely for the purpose of understanding nature, and not some “seamless unity” in his mind. Conceptually, it might help to think of Newton’s work in these areas like an archipelago. The islands, representing his different areas of study, are connected by bridges. In this way, islands/areas of thought are connected, but there is not a strong integration among them.

This shows that while Newton may have had a tighter unity in his mind with all of the areas he worked in, the separation of disciplines should give one pause, and to proceed cautiously before making strong claims for unity among his work and thought.

Looking at the nuances found among the different levels of divisions and connections, both on the larger disciplinary level and smaller connections between, it is clearer to see that when it comes to Isaac Newton’s writings, especially on religion, theology, and natural philosophy, what emerges is not so much the “seamless unity” that

Force calls for with regards to Newton’s thought, but rather different pursuits that are substantially separated. While Newton may have had larger connections or unity in his mind, the manuscripts do not necessarily show this. Also, as his writings have to express his thoughts on some level, it is reasonable to assess that even in his mind, he thought different areas of study needed to be substantially separated.

The connections that are indeed present in his works show how concerned

Newton was with understanding nature. When Newton’s natural philosophical writings appear “religious,” they are largely insofar as he includes God in natural philosophical discussion, particularly as a Being who creates nature, is active in nature, and Who gives nature order. As well, there are connections between his chymistry and optics, and possible connections between his physics and chymistry. It matters that his focus here

93 was largely on nature with these connections because it shows that calls for a strong unity between Newton’s theology and natural philosophy are not necessarily the case. As the evidence shows that substantial distinctions exist, the arguments for strong unity may be overstated. The focus, instead, should be on how important and significant God was to his natural philosophy when looking at the relationship between the two. Indeed, Newton scholars know this, but they should be more cautious when making larger claims about this relationship.

I agree with Iliffe that these attempts have been made as part of a way to save

Newton from “positivist” scholars looking to Newton only for significance in his advancements in scientific understanding. It makes sense that scholars, once they had their hands on manuscripts that shed a very new light on unknown aspects of Newton’s intellectual life, would want to better understand the man, especially since his works in theology, religion, and chymistry were seen to not line up with his well-known pursuits in science, which since the Enlightenment have served to prop up Newton as an icon of pure reason, free of the fetters of divine intervention and the perceived pseudo-science of alchemy. 343 Furthermore, as Newton was also held up as an exemplar of modernity, these scholars probably focused so much on his religious pursuits because not only were they out of the norm for even Protestant Christians of early modern England, but also religion itself is a cultural aspect that tends to not fall in line with the more secular ethos that modernity signifies. As well, it certainly appeared weird that Newton, the poster- child of the “Scientific Revolution” and “modern science” would be such a devoted

343 Iliffe, “Newton’s Religious Life and Work.”

94 theologian in his own right, and that he considered his religious and theological studies the most important aspects of his work. 344

This more nuanced view of religion in Newton’s science also leads into the larger picture of the relationship between religion and natural philosophy in early modern

Europe. Going back to the beginning of this study where I laid out the positions of

Cunningham – natural philosophy was God-oriented – and Grant – God could be brought into natural philosophy, but His inclusion did not serve it significantly – it would appear that Grant has the upper hand, at least as far as Newton is concerned, as the substance of his natural philosophical works consist of natural matters. Grant’s dismissal of God’s centrality misses an important aspect of natural philosophy, though. Lawrence Principe offers some balance, for he states the discipline was indeed the study of nature, but it was one that was connected to God and humankind. 345 This is a reasonable claim, for early modern culture was one where Christianity, in its different forms, was heavily integrated in the culture and in the worldview of early modern Europeans. For them, God was an integral part of their reality on a societal scale. It makes sense, then, that bringing God into the study of nature would have occurred. One must not forget, though, that Newton brought God into his works in part because of a reaction to Cartesianism, with its perceived atheism. It is also fair to state that Newton brought in discussion of God because of his intense and fervent personal devotion. Still, the writings show he was still willing to largely keep disciplinary boundaries among his works, making God a significant part of his natural philosophy, if not the substance of it. Grant makes a good point by mentioning how little Newton mentions God in the “General Scholium” of

344 Iliffe, Newton , 132. 345 Principe, The Scientific Revolution , 27.

95 second edition of the Principia (1713). The natural philosophic tome was 530 pages long, and Newton only discussed God in four of them at the end. 346

Newton’s goal for natural philosophy may have been to give proper reverence to

God, but that does not mean that he was trying to deeply integrate religion and science. 347

Other connections between his chymistry and optics, and maybe in his physics in the

“General Scholium,” show us that while natural philosophy was a subject that could be, and was, influenced by different areas of thought, there were also distinct ways of knowing about different aspects of nature in different categories of subjects. This helps us not only to better understand the relationship between religion and natural philosophy in early modern Europe, but it also helps us to better understand the study of nature itself, whereby there were attempts, as Newton shows, to keep subjects separated, such as physics, optics, and chymistry. 348

As such, we see that connections existed among different areas of thought in early modern Europe, but that these areas were also not necessarily involved in some deeply unified whole. This recognition of divisions and connections is a good impetus to further think about the role of knowledge, and just how whole it was for early modern

Europeans. Strongly linked to this is the study what early modern Europeans thought about the nature of truth, which pulls on Dobbs’s assumption that many at the time did think “Truth” was unified, and that skepticism was a problem in seventeenth-century thought. She looks here to the responses of Descartes and John Dury, a Scottish minister who lived during the English Civil War, to the problem of skepticism. Both thought it

346 Grant, 289. 347 Iliffe, “Newton’s Religious Life and Work.” 348 See Iliffe, “Abstract Considerations,” 430-2, where he in looks at the importance of disciplinary separations in early modern natural philosophy.

96 needed to be solved by a firm epistemological grounding. Descartes’s certainty was found with mathematics, and Dury’s with understanding prophecy in Scripture. Dobbs mentions that the point of all this is that no sure answer was known to counter skepticism.

She sees Newton’s response to this as looking to several different areas of knowledge to find God’s Truth, with the wide pursuit seemingly taken up because different approaches to knowledge, being able to contain error, could be corrected and complemented by each other. 349 It certainly appears that some areas complemented others in Newton’s writings, as this study shows with his natural philosophical and religious writings. Rather than speaking to some grand Truth, they more clearly present different truths about the natural world, the cosmos, and their Creator, with smaller connections to be found between them.

349 Dobbs, 6-12.

97

WORKS CITED

Primary Sources

“Andrew Motte’s translation of the General Scholium to Isaac Newton’s Principia (1729).” The Isaac Newton Project Canada . https://newtonprojectca.files. wordpress.com/2013/06/newton-general-scholium-1729-english-text-by-motte- letter-size.pdf (accessed February 25, 2016).

Newton, Humphrey, to John Conduitt. Keynes MS. 135. January 17, 1727/8, and February 17, 1727/8. The Newton Project . http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac. uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00033 (accessed November 2, 2015).

Newton, Isaac. “Commentarium.” Late 1680s to early 1690s. Keynes MS. 28. Translated by Betty Jo Teeter Dobbs, 276-7. In Dobbs, The Janus Faces of Genius: The Role of Alchemy in Newton’s Thought . New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Newton, Isaac. “ De Gravitatione et Aequipondio Fluidorum .” c. 1664-1685. Translated by W.B. Allen. Dr.William B. Allen . http://www.williambarclayallen.com/ translations/De_ Gravitatione_et_Aequipondio_Fluidorum_translation.pdf (accessed August 29, 2015).

Newton, Isaac. “Draft chapters of a treatise on the origin of religion and its corruption.” c. early 1690s. Yahuda MS. 41. Newton Project. http://www.newtonproject. sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/ THEM00077 (accessed February 4, 2016).

Newton, Isaac. “Exposition of 2 Kings 17:15-16.” c. 1675-1685. Yahuda MS. 28. Newton Project . http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/ THEM00064 (accessed March 21, 2016).

Newton, Isaac. “Hermes.” Late 1680s to early 1690s. Keynes MS. 28. The Chymistry of Isaac Newton . http://purl.dlib.indiana.edu/iudl/newton/ALCH00017 (accessed November 2, 2015).

Newton, Isaac. “Idea of a table booke.” Pre-1669-1693. Portsmouth Collection Add. MS. 3975. Chymistry of Isaac Newton . http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/newton/ mss/norm/ALCH00110/query/ field1=text&text1=MS%20Add.%203975 (accessed February 13, 2016).

Newton, Isaac. Keynes MS. 29. Chymistry of Isaac Newton . http://webapp1.dlib.indiana. edu/newton/mss/norm/ALCH00018 (accessed November 2, 2015).

98 Newton, Isaac. “Miscellaneous notes and extracts on the Temple, the Fathers, prophecy, Church history, doctrinal issues, etc.” Yahuda MS. 14. Newton Project. http://www.newtonproject. sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00057 (accessed February 1, 2016).

Newton, Isaac. “Notes on ancient religions.” 1680s-early 1690s. Yahuda MS. 17.3. Newton Project . http://www.newtonproject.sussesx.ac.uk/view/translation/ TRAN00012 (accessed February 4, 2016).

Newton, Isaac. “Of Natures obvious laws & processes in vegetation.” c. 1670s. Dibner MS. 1031 B. Chymistry of Isaac Newton . http://webapp1.dlip.indiana.edu/newton/ mss/norm/ ALCH00081/query/field1=text&text1=dibner%201031 (accessed February 7, 2016).

Newton, Isaac. Opticks: Or, A Treatise of the Reflections, Refractions, Inflexions and Colours of Light. The Second Edition, with Additions. London: 1718. Newton Project . http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/ NATP00051 (accessed April 2, 2016).

Newton, Isaac. The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy . Translated by I. Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999.

Newton, Isaac. “Seven Statements on Religion.” Post-1710. Keynes MS. 6. Newton Project. http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/ THEM00006 (accessed January 30, 2016).

Newton, Isaac, to Richard Bentley. December 10, 1692. Newton Project . http://www. newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00254 (accessed October 1, 2015).

Newton, Isaac. “Twelve articles on religion.” Post-1710. Keynes MS. 8. Newton Project . http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00008 (accessed February 21, 2016).

Newton, Isaac. “Untitled Treatise on Revelation.” c. 1670s-1680s. Yahuda MS 1.1. Newton Project . http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/ THEM00135 (accessed February 21, 2016).

“Manna.” Keynes MS. 33. Chymistry of Isaac Newton . http://purl.dlib.indiana.edu/iudl/ newton/ ALCH00022 (accessed October 21, 2015).

Secondary Sources

“About Isaac Newton and Alchemy.” Chymistry of Isaac Newton . http://webapp1. dlib.indiana.edu/newton/project/about.do (accessed April 2, 2016).

99

Cohen, I. Bernard, and George E. Smith. “Introduction.” In The Cambridge Companion to Newton . Edited by I Bernard Cohen and George E. Smith, 1-32. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey . Episode 3, “When Knowledge Conquered Fear.” DVD. Directed by Brannon Braga. 20 th Century Fox, 2005.

Cunningham, Andrew. “How the Principia Got Its Name; Or, Taking Natural Philosophy Seriously.” History of Science 29 (1991): 377-92.

Dear, Peter. Revolutionizing the Sciences: European Knowledge and its Ambitions, 1500- 1700 . 2nd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009.

Dobbs, Betty Jo Teeter. The Janus Faces of Genius: The Role of Alchemy in Newton’s Thought . New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Einstein, Albert. “Einstein on Newton.” NOVA . http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ physics/einstein-on-newton.html (accessed March 10, 2016).

Force, James. “Newton’s God of Dominion: The Unity of Newton’s Theological, Scientific, and Political Thought.” In Essays on the Context, Nature, and Influence of Isaac Newton’s Theology . Edited by J.E. Force and R.H. Popkin, 75- 102. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1990.

Figala, Karin. “Newton’s alchemy.” In The Cambridge Companion to Newton , 370-86. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Gay, Peter. The Enlightenment: An Interpretation. Volume II: The Science of Freedom . New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1977.

Grant, Edward. “God and Natural Philosophy: The Late Middle Ages and Sir Isaac Newton.” Early Science and Medicine 5, no. 3 (2000): 279-98.

Henry, John. “The Fragmentation of Renaissance Occultism and the Decline of Magic.” History of Science 46 (2008): 1-48.

Iliffe, Rob. “Abstract Considerations: Disciplines and the Incoherence of Newton’s Natural Philosophy.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 35 (2004): 427-54.

Iliffe, Rob. Newton: A Very Short Introduction . New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

100 Iliffe, Rob. “Newton’s Religious Life and Work.” 2013. Newton Project . http://www. newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/contexts/CNTX00001 (accessed February 8, 2016).

Janiak, Andrew. “Newton’s Philosophy.” 2014. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . http:// plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-philosophy/ (accessed February 23, 2016). Keynes, John Maynard. “Newton, the Man.” 1-6. Department of Physics, Columbia University . http://phys.columbia.edu/~millis/3003Spring2016/Supplementary/ John%20Maynard%20Keynes_%20%22Newton,%20the%20Man%22.pdf (accessed March 21, 2016).

MacIntosh, J.J. “Robert Boyle.” 2014. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . http://plato. stanford.edu/entries/boyle/#4 (accessed February 2, 2016).

Mamiani, Maurizio. “Newton on prophecy and the Apocalypse.” In The Cambridge Companion to Newton , 387-408. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

McGuire, J.E., and P.M. Rattansi. “Newton and the ‘Pipes of Pan.’” Notes and Records of The Royal Society of London 21, no. 2 (1966): 108-43.

Newman, William R., and Lawrence M. Principe. “Alchemy vs. Chemistry: The Etymological Origins of a Historiographic Mistake.” Early Science and Medicine 3, no. 1 (1998): 32-65.

Newman, William. “Introduction: Manuscripts of the Dibner Collection MS. 1031 B.” Chymistry of Isaac Newton . http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/newton/mss/ intro/ALCH00081 (accessed September 5, 2015).

Newman, William. “Introduction: Portsmouth Collection Add. MS. 3975.” Chymistry of Isaac Newton . http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/newton/mss/intro/ ALCH00110 (accessed October 26, 2015).

Newman, William. “Newton’s Early Optical Theory and its Debt to Chymistry.” The Chymistry of Isaac Newton , 1-42. http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/newton/html/ Newton_optics-alchemy_Jacquart_paper.pdf (accessed November 2, 2015).

Newman, William. “Review: The Janus Faces of Genius: The Role of Alchemy in Newton’s Thought ,” Isis 84, no. 3 (1993): 578-9.

Newman, William. “Why Did Isaac Newton Believe in Alchemy.” Perimeter Institute of Theoretical Physics . MP4. http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/videos/why- did-isaac-newton-believe-alchemy (accessed March 31, 2016).

101

Principe, Lawrence M. “Reflections on Newton’s Alchemy in Light of the New Historiography of Alchemy.” In Newton and Newtonianism: New Studies . Edited by James E. Force and Sarah Hutton, 205-19. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004.

Principe, Lawrence M. The Scientific Revolution: A Very Short Introduction . New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Principe, Lawrence M. The Secrets of Alchemy . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013.

Shapiro, Alan E. “Newton’s optics and atomism.” In The Cambridge Companion to Newton , 227-255. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Smith, George. “Newton’s Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica .” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . 2007. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton- principia/#ThrEdiPri (accessed February 18, 2016).

Snobelen, Stephen D. “‘God of Gods, and Lord of Lords’: The Theology of Isaac Newton’s General Scholium to the Principia.” Osiris 16 (2001): 169-208.

Snobelen, Stephen D. “‘The true frame of Nature’: Isaac Newton, Heresy, and the Reformation of Natural Philosophy.” In Heterodoxy in Early Modern Science and Religion . Edited by John Brooke and Ian Maclean, 223-62. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Stein, Howard. “Newton’s metaphysics.” In The Cambridge Companion to Newton , 256- 307. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Tyson, Neil deGrasse. “The Perimeter of Ignorance.” Natural History . http://www. naturalhistorymag.com/universe/211420/the-perimeter-of-ignorance (accessed March 10, 2016).

Unpublished Scientific Papers of Isaac Newton : A Selection from the Portsmouth Collection in the University Library, Cambridge . Edited by A. Rupert Hall and Marie Boas Hall. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1978.

Westfall, Richard S. Never at Rest: A Biography of Isaac Newton . New York: Cambridge University Press, 1980.

102 Westfall, Richard S. “Newton’s Theological Manuscripts.” In Contemporary Newtonian Research . Edited by Zev Bechler, 129-44. Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1982. Quoted in James Force, “Newton’s God of Dominion: The Unity of Newton’s Theological, Scientific, and Political Thought.” In Essays on the Context, Nature, and Influence of Isaac Newton’s Theology . Edited by J.E. Force and R.H. Popkin, 75-102. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1990.

103 REFERENCES

Cohen, I. Bernard. “The Principia , universal gravitation, and the ‘Newtonian style,’ in relation to the Newtonian revolution in science: notes on the occasion of the 250 th anniversary of Newton’s death.” In Contemporary Newtonian Research . Edited by Zev Bechler, 21-108. Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1982.

Feingold, Mordechai. The Newtonian Moment: Isaac Newton and the Making of Modern Culture . New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Meli, Domenico Bertoloni. Equivalence and Priority: Newton versus Leibniz, Including Leibniz’s Unpublished Manuscripts on the Principia. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.

“The Unknown Newton.” The New Atlantis . http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/ the-unknown-newton-a-symposium (accessed March 10, 2016).

104